260612.mbx

260612.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 117 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ellison Alleges 7-ELEVEN INC: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Choplin Says ALLIANCE CLOUD: Valenzuela Balks at Data Center's Noise Emissions AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Seeks OK of Renewed Bid For Class Cert BAKER COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Baker Gets Initial Nod BIG APPLE: Penaherrera-Chiliquinga Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BOGEY BROS: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users CALDIGIT INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Deadlines in Schechter Vacated CNU OF ALABAMA: Galvan Sues Over Unlawful High Interest Loans CROCS RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 22 D'AMICO INDUSTRIES: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DANAHER CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Hawkins Gets Initial Nod ERIE INSURANCE: Yardley Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Collection F & J PINE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought FIRST LITE: Voskian Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls FROST BANK: Shelton Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. FROST BANK: Tagle Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. GARMIN INT'L: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing of Smart Scale Product GENERAC POWER: Tate Sues Over Fire Hazard Risks of Generators GOODLEAP LLC: Faces Taylor Suit Over Hidden Finance Charge GRADY MEMORIAL: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Williamson Says GREENBRIER CLINIC: Wilson Balks at Mammograms' Quality Standards HALLMARK HEALTH: Class Settlement in Lasany Suit Gets Initial Nod HANKINS & SOHN: Class Cert Bid in Tausinga Due Jan. 18, 2027 HEWITT'S GARDEN: Marx Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 12 HYROX NORTH AMERICA: Nolan False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ICF TECHNOLOGY: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Tomasello INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rydosz Due Nov. 10 INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Files Suit Over Data Breach INTERVET INC: Palmieri Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal J.R. SIMPLOT: Schinzler Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Settlement in Gabbert Gets Initial Nod JP MORGAN: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal K-SWISS INC: Court Stays Morris Class Cert Proceedings KATRINKA'S INC: Faces Tenesaca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Johnson Bid for Leave to File Surreply Tossed MAGNITE INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal MARION COUNTY, OR: Settlement in Sawyer Gets Initial Nod MELODY TRUCKING: Class Cert Bid in Larmond Suit Due Sept. 13 MERIT ENERGY: Hodgens Sues Over Underpayment of Natural Gas Royalty MI FAMILIA: Velasquez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages MLD 2724: IRPs Seeks to File Sur-Reply Brief in Under Seal MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Lynch Gets Initial Nod NEW ORLEANS, LA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action OUT&BACK OUTDOOR: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PFIZER INC: Intercepts Web Users' Browsing Activity, Myers Says PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Decertify Class in Banks Suit Tossed ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court to Junk Ankus Class Cert Bid ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Wargolet SAC Dismissed w/ Prejudice SANDIA SEED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Deinnocentes Says SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought SENDERO PROVISIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Claims SHEATH LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SILVERTS UNIVERSAL: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SKYWEST AIRLINES: Court Sets Biefing Schedule in Skywest Suit SONDER HOLDINGS: Herring Suit Seeks Class Certification SONOCO PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due July 23 SOUTH BEACH: Torres Sues for Racial Discrimination, Unpaid Wages SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unexplained Credit Denial TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Seeks to Seal Exhibits TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Optum Seeks to Keep Lamb Report Under Seal TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Remain Exhibits Under Seal TIME CATCHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says TOTAL LONGTERM: Class Certification Filing Continued to Oct. 3 TOYOTA MOTOR: Goodman Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds TRINITY OPERATING: Patton Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement TSI 2021: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Claims UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Abramczyk Breach Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. US MED: More Time for Class Certification Discovery Sought YREFY LLC: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unexplained Loan Denial ZEZO FOOD: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cuz Alleges Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J-M Manufacturing Faces Suit Over Toxic Fibers ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Reports $1.0BB Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuit Claims J&J of Hiding Risk in Baby Talc ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ellison Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARL ELLISON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01755-L (N.D. Tex., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The complaint relates that the Defendant collects personally identifiable information in the course of doing business. In April 2026, Defendant experienced a data security incident and was the victim of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign, which exposed Private Information stored by Defendant on its network and systems. The Notorious cybercriminal extortion group "ShinyHunters" claimed responsibility for the Data Breach on April 17, 2026. It has been reported that the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, physical addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and driver's license numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms caused by the Data Breach. Plaintiff is at a present risk and will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud for years to come, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Carl Ellison is citizen and resident of Purcell, Oklahoma. He is a Data Breach victim. Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. is the operator and owner of a massive convenience store chain with franchise locations across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Choplin Says -------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA CHOPLIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01754-X (N.D. Tex., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The complaint relates that the Defendant collects personally identifiable information in the course of doing business. This personally identifiable information includes the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members which was compromised on April 17, 2026. The notorious cybercriminal extortion group "ShinyHunters" claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. It has been reported that the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, physical addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and driver's license numbers. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Rebecca Choplin is a citizen and resident of Raleigh, North Carolina. She is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. is the operator and owner of a massive convenience store chain with franchise locations across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ALLIANCE CLOUD: Valenzuela Balks at Data Center's Noise Emissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDY VALENZUELA and JOHN VALDES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ALLIANCE CLOUD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01694 (W.D. Mich., May 26, 2026) arises from excessive noise that enters Plaintiffs' and the Class's properties originating from Defendant's Data Center, which is in close proximity to the Class area. Defendant Alliance Cloud Services owns and operates the data center located in Dowagiac, Michigan. The complaint alleges that through its operation of the Data Center, the Defendant has emitted, and continues to emit, unreasonable and excessive noise onto Plaintiffs' property, causing property damage through nuisance and negligence. The Plaintiffs reside within 1 mile of the Data Center. Alliance Cloud Services, LLC owns the data center that is currently operating at a 30 megawatt capacity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. Trenten J. Ingell, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: Sliddle@lsclassaction.com Lsheets@lsclassaction.com Rsolt@lsclassaction.com Ingell@lsclassaction.com AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Seeks OK of Renewed Bid For Class Cert -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his renewed motion for class certification. The renewed motion addresses only the two specific issues identified by the Court: "(1) the predominance evidence that the Court previously found lacking; and (2) whether the Court has equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s restitution claim." If, despite the foregoing, AHM does not waive its objection and the Court finds that it lacks equitable jurisdiction, dismissal would be without prejudice and would not constitute an adjudication on the merits. The Plaintiff also requests that, if the Court dismisses this matter for lack of equitable jurisdiction, the order of dismissal confirm that the Cert. Order was not a final order, as evidenced by the fact that the Court had requested additional briefing on the two issues above. This will clarify the issue for the state court, if necessary. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uZlzYk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com BAKER COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Baker Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER v. Baker County, Case No. 2:24-cv-01503 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an order preliminarily approving settlement, conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of class notice, and setting date for final approval hearing. -- The Court conditionally certifies the following class (the "Settlement Class"): "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that the Defendant Yamhill County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, (2) still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property or retain for its own use, may decide to retain for its own use, or without a public auction has transferred or may transfer to a land bank, housing agency, or non-profit housing-related organization and for which the deed for such property was transferred to Yamhill during the Class Period." -- Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Yamhill County, except that this provision does not apply to estate administrators pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and; (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Yamhill County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired." -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Walter and Carolyn Jaquith as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"). -- A final approval hearing shall be held before the undersigned on Sept. 17, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. Baker County is located in the northeastern corner of Oregon, bordered by the Snake River and Idaho to the east. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RyY5pa at no extra charge.[CC] BIG APPLE: Penaherrera-Chiliquinga Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON RAUL PENAHERRERA-CHILIQUINGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG APPLE READY MIX LLC, and MARCELLO AKA SPAGNOLO, NICK DRAGONETTI, and JOSEPH BENJAMIN CATAPANO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03086 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) seeks to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from October 2024 until February 2026. The complaint asserts the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to furnish with a written wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements upon each payment of wages. Big Apple Ready Mix LLC is a ready-mix concrete supplier based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 BOGEY BROS: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bogey Bros Golf Co. LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5868 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://bogeybros.co to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff Williams searched online for funny sports polos suitable for casual wear and recreational activities and discovered the Defendant's website. He reviewed customer feedback and decided to make a purchase. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that ultimately prevented him from completing the purchase. The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Williams and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Williams seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Bogey Bros Golf Co. LLC operates the website that offers golf-inspired clothing with a modern, humorous design, including polos, t-shirts, hoodies, quarter zip sweaters, hats and caps, beanies, gloves, ball markers, and golf towels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law CALDIGIT INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caldigit Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05869 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.caldigit.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was searching for a Thunderbolt/USB-C cable and decided to explore the options available online. On April 14, 2026, during his online search, Wood discovered Defendant's website. Interested in the products offered on the website, he decided to explore the available options with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, Wood encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Wood and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. Plaintiff Wood seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Caldigit Inc. operates the website that offers computer accessories and technology products, including docking stations, hubs, adapters, cables, external storage solutions, and related connectivity accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Deadlines in Schechter Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELI SCHECHTER and TALYA MALKA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1-50, Case No. 8:25-cv-02426-MRA-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani entered an order that: 1. The June 23, 2026 deadline to hear motions to amend pleadings or add parties is vacated. 2. All deadlines related to class certification are vacated, including but not limited to (a) any class certification discovery cutoff; (b) the Aug. 26, 2026 deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification; (c) any briefing or hearing dates on the potential motion for class certification. 3. After the Court issues an order resolving the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the Parties shall meet and confer and file, within 14 days of the Court's Order, a joint report proposing (a) a new deadline to hear motions to amend pleadings or add parties and (b) a new schedule for class certification discovery, briefing, and hearing. 4. All other dates and deadlines in the Court's March 26, 2026, Civil Trial Order remain in full force and effect. Chapman University is a private research university in Orange, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xz8Ale at no extra charge.[CC] CNU OF ALABAMA: Galvan Sues Over Unlawful High Interest Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE GALVAN and TAMARA GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CNU OF ALABAMA, LLC, CNU OF DELAWARE, LLC, CNU OF IDAHO, LLC, CNU OF KANSAS, LLC, CNU OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC, CNU OF MISSOURI, LLC, CNU ONLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, CNU OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC, CNU OF TENNESSEE, LLC, CNU OF TEXAS, LLC, CNU OF UTAH, LLC, ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05957 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026), seeks to challenge Defendants' predatory high interest loans designed to exploit active-duty military personnel and their families in violation of the Military Lending Act. The Plaintiffs maintain that CashNetUSA's loans violate the MLA in many ways: (1) they require Plaintiffs and other covered members/class members to pay interest above 36%; (2) credit was extended without the mandatory MLA disclosures; and (3) they require mandatory arbitration, class action waivers, jury trial waivers, demand unreasonable notice before filing suit, and use the borrower's checking account as security for the loans, all in violation of MLA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek a declaration from the court that Defendants' loans extended to Plaintiffs and the Class are void and that Defendants shall stop all ongoing collection efforts on the unlawful loans. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, CNU Online Holdings, LLC does business as CashNet USA Holdings and offers online lending and consumer finance services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com service@vandwlaw.com - and - Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. BARDO LAW, P.C. 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 219-6980 E-mail: stacy@bardolawpc.com CROCS RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 22 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW HUNTHAUSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CROCS RETAIL, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.CROCS.COM, Case No. 2:25-cv-04199-AH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order continuing the last day to hear any motion for class certification from July 1, 2026 to Sept. 16, 2026, with the following briefing schedule applicable thereto: July 22, 2026: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 19, 2026: The Defendant's opposition to motion for class certification Sept. 2, 2026: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. Crocs manages the physical retail stores, brand outlets, and localized customer service channels for Crocs footwear and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xCl4mY at no extra charge.[CC] D'AMICO INDUSTRIES: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEONIDA ARNELIO RAMOS MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'AMICO INDUSTRIES, LLC, D’AMICO CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ANTONINO D'AMICO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03085 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) seeks to recover damages for egregious wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiff Morales resides in Flushing, New York and was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker while performing other related miscellaneous duties from April 2002 until November 2024. D'Amico Industries, LLC operates a construction and labor services business based in Whitestone, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DANAHER CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Hawkins Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA HAWKINS, et al., v. DANAHER CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02055-AHA (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Ali entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The court further specifies the following: 1. The Parties propose certifying the following Class for settlement purposes, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): "all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Danaher common stock between Jan. 27, 2022, and Oct. 23, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby", except for: (i) the Defendants and members of their immediate families; (ii) any person who was a director or officer of Danaher during the Class Period; (iii) any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (iv) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party; and (v) any Class Members that submit a valid and timely request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the requirements set by the court. 2. The Parties also propose the appointment of the Plaintiffs as the class representatives of the Class and the appointments of Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP as Class counsel and Liaison Counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class liaison counsel. 3. The court concludes, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(B)(ii), that it will likely be able to certify the proposed Class for purposes of the proposed Settlement. 4. A settlement fairness hearing shall be held before this court on Sept. 3, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., Danaher develops products used for advances in biotechnology, life sciences, and diagnostics. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zRdF3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Justin D. D'Aloia, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com jdaloia@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Lutz, Esq. Lissa M. Percopo, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: BLutz@gibsondunn.com LPercopo@gibsondunn.com ERIE INSURANCE: Yardley Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC YARDLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03144-LL-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for recording, decoding, or capturing Plaintiff's routing, addressing, or signaling information and aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same via a tracking pixel in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, countless Californians have visited the Defendant's website, https://www.erieinsurance.com and without their knowledge, the Defendant secretly collected their personal identifying information consisting of their routing, addressing, or signaling information. Each time Plaintiff and Class Members visited the site, the Defendant utilized various hidden trackers, including the Meta Pixel to collect their routing, addressing and signaling information, in addition to their IP addresses, unique identifiers, browsing information, and other personal information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action in order to prevent Defendant from continuing to violate CIPA, and to recover statutory damages for Plaintiff and Class Members. Erie Insurance Group is a property and casualty insurance company offering auto, home, business and life insurance.[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 F & J PINE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jorge Bruno, et al., v. F & J Pine Restaurant LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10599-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a six-day extension of the current June 4, 2026 deadline to file opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification. The Defendants seek a six-day extension, equal to the extension Plaintiff previously received to file the motion. This request is necessary because the Defendants' counsel was out of the country on a preplanned vacation and did not return until May 29, limiting their ability to adequately address the issues raised in the Plaintiff's motion. In addition, counsel has been occupied with other litigation matters requiring immediate attention, further constraining the time available to prepare the Defendants' response. F&J is a quintessential Italian restaurant. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5bQ2Kl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC LABOR & EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: www.pechmanlaw.com FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Polak v. Finastra Technology, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01284-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for disclosure of expert reports related to class certification set by the amended case management and scheduling order entered Jan. 1, 2026. Accordingly, the Parties request the Court extend the deadlines for (a) The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures related to class certification through and including July 31, 2026, (b) The Defendant's expert disclosures related to class certification through and including Sept. 15, 2026; (c) Discovery (class action) through and including Oct. 15, 2026; (d) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification through and including Nov. 13, 2026; (e) The Defendants' response to motion for class certification through and including Dec. 15, 2026; and (f) The Plaintiff's reply to response to motion for class certification through and including Dec. 29, 2026. Finastra provides banking software and solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LfbL7J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL, 33131 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul J. Scheck, Esq. Francis Augustine Zacherl, III, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 423-3200 E-mail: scheck@shutts.com Zacherl@shutts.com - and - Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, Esq. Sean M. Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 E-mail: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com FIRST LITE: Voskian Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- PETER VOSKIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST LITE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-14188-AMC (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2026) seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in aggressive telephonic sales call campaigns to consumers with no regards for consumers' rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's messages, asserts the complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. First Lite, LLC is a company that provides outdoor apparel and hunting gear to consumers, throughout the United States and the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FROST BANK: Shelton Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN SHELTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FROST BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2026CI09259, was removed from the 285th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03410 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Frost was subject to a data incident allegedly affecting the personal information of Plaintiff and other individuals. He purports to represent a putative class of all persons in the United States whose private information was accessed and/or compromised as a result of the data incident. Frost Bank is an American bank based in San Antonio that is chartered in Texas.[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 E-mail: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Ashley Senary, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Frost Tower, 111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5575 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 E-mail: ashley.dahlberg@nortonrosefulbright.com FROST BANK: Tagle Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as PABLO TAGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FROST BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2026CI09121, was removed from the 438th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03411 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Frost was subject to a data incident allegedly affecting the personal information of Plaintiff and other individuals. He purports to represent a putative class of all persons in the United States whose private information was accessed and/or compromised as a result of the data incident. Frost Bank is an American bank based in San Antonio that is chartered in Texas.[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 E-mail: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Ashley Senary, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Frost Tower, 111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5575 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 E-mail: ashley.dahlberg@nortonrosefulbright.com GARMIN INT'L: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing of Smart Scale Product ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR MAURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, INC., and GARMIN LTD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-6389 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) arises from Defendants' deceptive marketing of their Garmin Index S2 Smart Scale (the "Smart Scale(s)"), which they promise accurately measures various body composition metrics despite the Smart Scale's inability to provide accurate body composition measurements and contrary scientific evidence. Defendants Garmin International, Inc., Defendant Garmin USA, Inc., and Defendant Garmin Ltd. are related entities that design, develop, manufacture, distribute, market, and direct the marketing of their Smart Scale throughout the United States, including the state of Illinois. Plaintiff Victor Maurer purchased the Garmin Index S2 Smart Scale in August 2024 from Garmin through its storefront on Amazon.com, the Garmin Store, for $149.99. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Maurer purchased and paid a premium price for his Smart Scale. Shortly after he received his Smart Scale, he began using it as intended and recommended, consistent with Garmin's instructions, and maintained it in a reasonable manner. However, after regular and foreseeable use of his Smart Scale, he noticed that the measurements and readings from his Smart Scale as to his body composition including body fat percentage were not accurate. Had Plaintiff Maurer known of the Smart Scale's true nature, and of Garmin's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct, he would not have purchased the Smart Scale on the same terms or for the same price or would have paid significantly less for the Smart Scale, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Garmin to cease its unfair, deceptive, and unlawful conduct.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP Mailing Address: 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 205-2815 E-mail: rsoffin@pwfirm.com kdavies@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: 612-389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. LEE SEGUI, PLLC 421 N. Harrington St., Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 E-mail: eruben@leesegui.com tpacheco@leesegui.com GENERAC POWER: Tate Sues Over Fire Hazard Risks of Generators ------------------------------------------------------------- PRENTISS TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00127-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss., May 21, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated who purchased Defendant's portable generators that are unfit for their intended purpose due to risk of serious injury or death from burn and fire hazards. On April 16, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall on certain portable generators manufactured and distributed by the Defendant, due to the potential risk of the fuel leaking from the carburetor when filling the recalled generator with gasoline prior to use. Through marketing and sale, the Defendants represented that the Products are safe for consumer use. The Plaintiff and other consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased carried the potential for fire or burn hazard. Consumers expect the products they purchased to be safe and suitable for the designated use, says the suit. Because Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the now worthless and dangerous Products under the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered losses. As a result of the above losses, Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies. Generac Power Systems Inc. produces and distributes power equipment. The Company offers portable, residential, commercial, mobile, and industrial generators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: Andre.Belanger@poulinwilley.com GOODLEAP LLC: Faces Taylor Suit Over Hidden Finance Charge ---------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODLEAP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01728 (D.D.C., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act and the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant partners with and directs door-to-door salespeople and installers to persuade homeowners -- often elderly and lower-income -- to purchase and install solar panel systems for their homes. Making promises of cost savings and tax credits, which frequently do not materialize, GoodLeap, in connection with and through its agents, entices consumers to enter into long-term financing contracts that encumber fixtures of their homes. As a material part of those financing contracts, GoodLeap conceals additional financing fees from consumers by hiding them in the principal amount of the loan. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers end up paying not only a hidden finance charge of up to 30% of the total of their loan, but additional interest on that finance charge, all without any disclosure of said fee at the start of the loan, says the suit. GoodLeap, LLC, formerly known as LoanPal LLC, is a California limited liability company and nonbank lender with its principal place of business in Roseville, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com GRADY MEMORIAL: Discloses Info to 3rd Parties, Williamson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02846-MLB (N.D. Ga., May 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's illegal and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and putative Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Google, LLC. Defendant Grady controls and maintains a website, https://www.gradyhealth.org/ where it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options. The Plaintiff and members of the putative class who visited and used Defendant's website understandably thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare providers. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Class Members, however, Grady embedded various third-parties' tracking technologies on its website, including but not limited to, Google DoubleClick and Google Analytics. The Tracking Tools automatically transmit to third parties every click, keystroke and detail about users' medical treatment, says the suit. Plaintiff Williamson has been a patient of Grady since at least 2010 and has maintained a Google account since at least 2012. Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation operates the Grady Health System, anchored by a 953-bed teaching hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybcthi@.gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com GREENBRIER CLINIC: Wilson Balks at Mammograms' Quality Standards ---------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL WILSON, and ERIN DOTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE GREENBRIER CLINIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00355 (S.D. W.Va., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act arising from its failure to provide accurate and reliable mammography services. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented to Plaintiffs and Class Members that its clinic offered the latest technology to aid in detecting health issues and that by leveraging these state-of-the-art diagnostic tools, physicians can accurately identify patient concerns and health issues. Payment was made on Plaintiffs' behalf for mammography services and facilities that followed applicable clinical image quality standards and were as represented by Defendant. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs did not receive the quality of mammogram for which they paid. Plaintiffs and Class Members received mammograms that were inaccurate, inferior, and not in compliance with applicable image quality standards, says the suit. The Defendant represented that its 3D mammography technology was accurate, could help detect breast cancer earlier, and therefore allow treatment sooner. However, now, a year and a half later, the Defendant informs Plaintiffs that its mammography was not accurate and could not be relied upon for the early detection of breast cancer. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated individuals, were deprived of their benefit of the bargain, and have been subjected to unnecessary emotional distress regarding the true results of their mammograms. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including compensatory damages on behalf of the Class, and other equitable relief on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class. The Greenbrier Clinic, Inc. provides healthcare services including diagnostic technologies such as bone density scanning, radiography, computerized tomography, and mammography.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce E. Mattock, Esq. Leif J. Ocheltree, Esq. GOLDBERG PERSKY & WHITE, P.C. 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 471-3980 Facsimile: (412) 471-8308 E-mail: bmattock@gpwlaw.com locheltree@gpwlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Ryan D. Wilson, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com ryan.wilson@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com HALLMARK HEALTH: Class Settlement in Lasany Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASANY A MUHAMMAD on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HALLMARK HEALTH CARE SOLUTION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10344-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Gorton entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court orders as follows: 1. For settlement purposes, the Court grants class certification for settlement purposes only under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following Class: "All current and fonner customer support specialists and senior customer support specialists who worked for at least one week from Feb. 10, 2021 to the date of this Order." 2. Don Foty of the Foty Law Group and Arnold Lizana of the Law Offices of Arnold Lizana, III are appointed as Counsel for the Class. 3. The Plaintiff Lasanya Muhmmad is appointed as representative of the Class ("Class Representative"). 4. The Class Notice attached to the Settlement Agreement is approved. 5. A hearing to consider and determine (i) whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally approved, (ii) whether Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and costs should be approved, and (iii) whether the application for Class Representative incentive awards should be approved, is set for Thursday, Sept. 24, 2026 at 2:00 P. M. 6. All other deadlines in the Action are stayed pending the final approval hearing. The Defendant provides healthcare technology focused on workforce management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EI6gNU at no extra charge.[CC] HANKINS & SOHN: Class Cert Bid in Tausinga Due Jan. 18, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tausinga v. Hankins & Sohn Plastic Surgery Associates et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00824-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Albregts entered an order modifying the scheduling order deadlines for phase I (precertification) of discovery (second request). Event New Date Phase I discovery cutoff: Sept. 30, 2026 The Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) class Oct. 29, 2026 certification expert disclosures: The Defendant's Rule 26(a)(2) rebuttal Dec. 29, 2026 class certification expert disclosures: Deadline for motion for Class Jan. 18, 2027 certification: Deadline for motions related to class Feb. 16, 2027 certification experts: On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs, Jennifer Tausinga, Alysia Wrenn, and Olga Romashova served their First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things, and First Request for Admissions to Defendant. On Jan. 7, 2025, the Defendant served its first supplemental responses to the Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents and things. Hankins & Sohn specializes in plastic surgery, both cosmetic & reconstructive. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QFffX0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 2350 W Charleston Blvd, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com - and - Nicholas A. Coletta, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Daniel C. Tetreault, Esq. Ramzy P. Ladah, Esq. LADAH LAW FIRM 517 S. Third Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 - 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: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Jonathan B. Lee, Esq. Clark Seegmiller, Esq. RICHARD HARRIS LAW FIRM 801 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 The Defendants are represented by: L. Renee Green, Esq. Gary E. Schnitzer, Esq. Marta D. Dunning, Esq. SCHNITZER JOHNSON & WATSON, CTD. Gary E. Schnitzer 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 200 Las Vegas NV 89123 E-mail: gschnitzer@sjwlawfirm.com rgreen@sjwlawfirm.com mdunning@sjwlawfirm.com HEWITT'S GARDEN: Marx Conditional Class Cert Bid Due June 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marx v. Hewitt's Garden Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 15, 2026), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order granting Letter Request for a second extension of time to file Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion is due on or before June 12, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is an independent garden center.[CC] HYROX NORTH AMERICA: Nolan False Ads Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACK NOLAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYROX NORTH AMERICA INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12579, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05481 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts six causes of action for alleged violations of: (1) the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) the California Unfair Competition Law; (3) the California False Advertising Law; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) quasi-contract. HYROX North America Inc. is the official regional corporate entity responsible for managing, organizing, and promoting the "World Series of Fitness Racing" (HYROX) throughout the United States, Canada, and the broader North American market.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Irina J. Mazor, Esq. Peter F. Lindborg, Esq. LINDBORG & MAZOR LLP 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1830 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 637-8325 Email: imazor@lmllp.com plindborg@lmllp.com - and - Jeffrey S. Lowenstein, Esq. Christian J. Cowart, Esq. Giuliana Hays-Angelelli, Esq. BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 740-1400 E-mail: jlowenstein@bellnunnally.com ccowart@bellnunnally.com ghays-angelelli@bellnunnaly.com ICF TECHNOLOGY: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Tomasello ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA TOMASELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., and ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03759-MCA-JRA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count I and denying it as to Counts II-IV. Thge Court further entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to Count I and granting it as to Counts II-IV. In short, applying the federal Economic Reality test, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are independent contractors as a matter of law, precluding relief under the FLSA. However, applying the more stringent state-law ABC test, Plaintiffs qualify as employees, establishing liability on the remaining state law claims. The Plaintiffs are adult entertainers who livestream performances on Streamate.com, a hosting platform created, operated, and maintained by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs bring this hybrid lawsuit asserting a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I), and class claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for alleged violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") (Count II), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") (Count III & Count IV). For the FLSA claim (Count I), the Court conditionally certified a collective of opt-in Performers who worked for the Defendants in New Jersey during the three years preceding this case through the entry of judgment. For the state law claims (Counts II–IV), the Court certified a class of New Jersey Performers categorized as independent contractors from Aug. 6, 2019 through the entry of judgment. In April 2025, the Court granted final certification for both the collective and class action groups. ICF is a streaming and processing service provider. A copy of the Court's opinion dated May 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oHL7yu at no extra charge.[CC] INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rydosz Due Nov. 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER RYDOSZ, v. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11475-JAK-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kronstadt entered an order approving in part the stipulation and agreed motion to amend scheduling order. The Order setting pretrial deadlines is modified as follows: Event Continued Date Last day to amend or add Parties: Sept. 29, 2026 Last day to file motion for class Nov. 10, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to Dec. 8, 2026 motion for class certification: Last day to file reply in support of Dec. 22, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Jan. 11, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. Last day to conduct settlement conference Feb. 4, 2027 or mediation: Last date to file all motions: April 15, 2027 The Defendant is an American event promoter and entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsocTU at no extra charge.[CC] INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Jimenez Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- TERRIE JIMENEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00567 (E.D. Tex., May 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") suffered by Defendant between November 19, 2025, and November 22, 2025. The complaint relates that on April 23, 2026, Defendant confirmed that personal information was accessed or taken from its network and systems between November 19, 2025, and November 22, 2025. On May 26, 2026, Defendant began sending notice letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, and financial account information. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Terrie Jimenez is a citizen and resident of Pueblo West, Colorado and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Interstate Management Company, LLC d/b/a Aimbridge Hospitality is "the leading global hotel management company", with divisions that offer account management, strategic revenue optimization, and scalable purchasing power services to luxury and lifestyle hotels across the United States, as well as across Europe and Latin America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com INTERVET INC: Palmieri Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE PALMIERI, DIANE GORDON, TERI IPPOLITO, GAYLE MORASKI, HOLLY REEVES, and AMY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERVET, INC. d/b/a MERCK ANIMAL HEALTH, a subsidiary of MERCK & CO., INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Espinosa entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting materials provisionally under seal. The Parties are ordered to confer concerning the confidentiality designations of the documents and information cited and discussed in the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, their memorandum in support thereof, and other supporting materials, pursuant to L.R. 5.3(c)(2) "in an effort to narrow or eliminate the materials or information that may be the subject of a motion to seal." The Parties are further directed to follow L.R. 5.3 and 37.1 concerning any disputes related to the designation of confidential materials. The Defendant delivers advanced animal health products and import/export services for livestock and companion animals. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpwQBB at no extra charge.[CC] J.R. SIMPLOT: Schinzler Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JACOB RYAN SCHINZLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 26-00002-00431-13, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington, in and for Grant County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00230 to the proceeding. On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff Schinzler filed this suit for Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the Washington's wage and hour laws. J. R. Simplot Company, LLC is a privately held agribusiness company headquartered in Boise, Idaho.[BN] Defendant J. R. Simplot Company is represented by: Heather M. Fossity, Esq. Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. Kenneth M. Rock, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 552-2140 Facsimile: (503) 224-4518 E-mail: heather.fossity@ogletree.com kenneth.rock@ogletree.com JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Settlement in Gabbert Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gabbert et al v. Josephine County, Case No. 1:23-cv-01434 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an order preliminarily approving settlement, conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of class notice, and setting date for final approval hearing. -- The Court conditionally certifies the following class (the "Settlement Class"): "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that the Defendant Yamhill County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, (2) still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property or retain for its own use, may decide to retain for its own use, or without a public auction has transferred or may transfer to a land bank, housing agency, or non-profit housing-related organization and for which the deed for such property was transferred to Yamhill during the Class Period." -- Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Yamhill County, except that this provision does not apply to estate administrators pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and; (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Yamhill County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired." -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Walter and Carolyn Jaquith as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"). -- A final approval hearing shall be held before the undersigned on Sept. 17, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. Josephine County is located in the southwestern part of Oregon, bordering California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F3Pkfh at no extra charge.[CC] JP MORGAN: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bodea v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06404-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file under seal letter in response to the Plaintiffs' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated motion for class certification. Consistent with Your Honor's Individual Practices, JPMS has (i) publicly filed the letter with proposed redactions linked to this Letter Motion; and (ii) electronically filed under seal a highlighted copy of the unredacted letter also linked to this Letter Motion. The reason for this request is that the letter contains information that the Plaintiffs have designated "Confidential" under the Protective Order. JPMS takes no position on the propriety of the Plaintiffs' designations and reserves the right to challenge them. JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=buSw8H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Joel M. Sweet, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com aheller@bergermontague.com jsweet@bergermontague.com rraghavan@bergermontague.com jsamuel@bergermontague.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. Emily A. Tu, 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 The Defendants are represented by: Jayant W. Tambe, Esq. Laura Washington Sawyer, Esq. Céalagh P. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Meredith Christian, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3936 E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com lwsawyer@jonesday.com cfitzpatrick@jonesday.com mchristian@jonesday.com K-SWISS INC: Court Stays Morris Class Cert Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY MORRIS, v. K-SWISS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00513-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pepper entered an order granting the plaintiff's Rule 7(h) motion to stay proceedings on the motion for class certification, for relief from memorandum, supporting documents and automatic briefing requirements. The court orders that the plaintiff (and, in the event that the defendant makes an appearance, the defendant) are relieved from the briefing schedule required by Civil L.R. 7(a)-(d) and Civil L.R. 7(a)'s requirement that the plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of the motion for class certification Several years later, in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015), the Seventh Circuit overruled Damasco to the extent of holding that a defendant's offer of full compensation would not end the Article III case or controversy. But in the decade since, the Seventh Circuit has faced similar attempts to "buy off" representative plaintiffs, and has addressed those attempts under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 67 and 68. Even though it overruled Damasco's mootness holding, the Seventh Circuit has "observed that the safest way to preserve the option of serving as a class representative is to file a prophylactic motion for class certification at the time the lawsuit is filed." The plaintiff has done that here, albeit via Civil L.R. 7(h), which is designed to allow parties to address minor discovery disputes without having to go through the standard, more lengthy briefing schedule mandated by Civil L.R. 7(a)–(d). On March 29, 2026, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. That same day, he filed a Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion for class certification. The Defendant designs, develops, and markets athletic footwear for sports use, fitness activities, and casual wear. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jlLxqn at no extra charge.[CC] KATRINKA'S INC: Faces Tenesaca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA CECILIA MONTALEZA TENESACA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATRINKA'S INC. d/b/a KATRINKA'S DELI, ROBERT D. CONVALAN, and YOLANDA A. CONVALAN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03088-OEM-LGD (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiff Tenesaca was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from October 2021 until April 2026, with the exception of the period of October 2025 until February 2026. Katrinka's Inc., d/b/a Katrinka's Deli, is a restaurant based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A sur-reply is warranted for at least two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs' reply raises several new arguments not presented in their motion of which Defendants have had no opportunity to respond. Second, a sur-reply is warranted because the Defendants have asserted a lack of price impact as a reason why individual issues will predominate over common ones. Granting leave to file the proposed sur-reply will afford the Plaintiffs and the Defendants equal pages (45) across class certification briefing. On May 1, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On May 15, 2026, the Defendants filed their combined opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. KnowBe4 provides software security solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4I3Ni9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Nabors, Esq. Samuel G. Williamson, Esq. David A. Nabors, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Sarah Bittman, Esq. Marielle Paloma Greenblatt QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33133-5417 Telephone: (305) 402-4880 E-mail: samwilliamson@quinnemanuel.com davidnabors@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com sarahbittman@quinnemanuel.com mariellegreenblatt@quinnemanuel.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Johnson Bid for Leave to File Surreply Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN JOHNSON, et al., v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02294-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie R. Rubin entered a memo denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Futhermore , the Defendant's motion to disqualify counsel shall be held sub curia as follows: Mr. Karen shall have until 12:00PM, June 8, 2026, to provide waivers for the court's evaluation. If Mr. Karen wishes to submit such waivers under seal for ex parte review, he shall accompany his filing with a motion compliant with Local Rule 105.11. In the event no waivers are timely submitted for the court's review, the court will enter an order granting the Motion and disqualifying Mr. Karen and Mitchell Sandler PLLC from representing Plaintiffs in this matter. In the event Mr. Karen provides waivers for the court to evaluate, the court will undertake a fulsome assessment and will issue a final ruling on the Motion accordingly. The court finds that absent competent waivers, Mr. Karen and his firm are operating under material conflicts of interest in the representation of the Plaintiffs and putative class members in this case. But, in order to determine whether the Motion should be granted—i.e., whether to disqualify Mr. Karen and his firm— the court must evaluate waiver in full. On July 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs initiated this class action against the Defendant for violation of the loan officer compensation provisions of Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant "unlawfully steered the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, to [mortgage] loans with higher rates and fees—a practice it accomplished by reducing the commissions paid to loan officers on discounted loans." The Defendant is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order memorandum opinion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1nbjkW at no extra charge.[CC] MAGNITE INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD LEWIS and PATRICIA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MAGNITE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the Defendant's application under Local Rule 79-5 for leave to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certain supporting materials under seal : The Court orders that the Defendant may file the following under seal: Document Portions to be Sealed Magnite's Opposition to the Page 22, lines 15–16; 17–18 Plaintiffs' motion for class Page 24; fn. 10, lines 25–27 certification Expert Report of Ron Schnell Page 6, last sentence of para. 8 attached as Exhibit 1 to the Page 6, last sentence of para 9 declaration of Anna Mouw Page 7, sentence 2 of para. 11 Thompson in support of Page 21, sentence 2 of para. 64; Magnite's Opposition fn. 49 Page 22, sentence 2 of para. 65 Page 22, sentences 2–3 of para. 66 Page 22, sentences 2–5 of para. 67 Page 22, sentences 3–5 of para. 68; fn. 53 Page 23, sentence 2–4 of para. 69; fn. 54 Page 23, sentence 2 of para. 70; fns. 55, 56 Page 23, sentences 1–3, 5 of para. 71; fn. 57 Page 24, sentence 2 of para. 73 The Defendant is an American online advertising technology firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ifqzH at no extra charge.[CC] MARION COUNTY, OR: Settlement in Sawyer Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sawyer et al., v. Marion County et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01971 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an order preliminarily approving settlement, conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of class notice, and setting date for final approval hearing. -- The Court conditionally certifies the following class (the "Settlement Class"): "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that the Defendant Yamhill County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, (2) still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property or retain for its own use, may decide to retain for its own use, or without a public auction has transferred or may transfer to a land bank, housing agency, or non-profit housing-related organization and for which the deed for such property was transferred to Yamhill during the Class Period." -- Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Yamhill County, except that this provision does not apply to estate administrators pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and; (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Yamhill County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired." -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Walter and Carolyn Jaquith as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"). -- A final approval hearing shall be held before the undersigned on Sept. 17, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. Marion County is located in the heart of the Willamette Valley in northwest Oregon. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dbi7Mv at no extra charge.[CC] MELODY TRUCKING: Class Cert Bid in Larmond Suit Due Sept. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN LARMOND ET AL., v. MELODY TRUCKING CORP., & ALDRIN YOANI FUENTES MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:26-cv-00874-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Barksdale entered case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation a follows : Action or Event Date Deadline for providing initial disclosures June 13, 2026 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): Deadline for filing any dispositive and July 16, 2027 Daubert motions: Deadline to conduct mediation: Aug. 16, 2027 Deadline for completing all discovery and Sept. 13, 2027 filing any motion to compel discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37: Deadline for moving for class certification, Sept. 13, 2027 if applicable. Melody is an active interstate freight carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CH1hf9 at no extra charge.[CC] MERIT ENERGY: Hodgens Sues Over Underpayment of Natural Gas Royalty ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES J. HODGENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00170-GLJ (E.D. Okla., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant concerning Merit's actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, through improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay royalties as required by the applicable agreements and Oklahoma law. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the other Class and Subclass members are parties to written, fully executed, oil-and-gas leases. Merit breached the terms of Plaintiff's and the Class and Subclass leases by its actions in underpaying royalty or not paying royalty on all products sold from the gas stream, and in failing to completely compensate Subclass members for gas used as fuel off the lease premises. The Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members seek actual damages caused by Merit's breaches and as well as statutory interest and other allowable damages imposed by Oklahoma law, including punitive damages. Plaintiff James J. Hodgens is a citizen and resident of Oklahoma who owns a royalty interest in one or more Merit-operated wells located in Oklahoma. Defendant Merit Energy Company, LLC is in the business of producing and marketing natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, from Merit's operated oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma in which the Class and Subclass members hold royalty interests.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Drew Pate, Esq. Trey Duck, Esq. Cody Hill, Esq. Nathan Hall, Esq. NIX PATTERSON, LLP 8701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 Facsimile: (512) 328-5335 E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com dpate@nixlaw.com tduck@nixlaw.com codyhill@nixlaw.com nhall@nixlaw.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com MI FAMILIA: Velasquez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JUANA YAMILETH VELASQUEZ VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MI FAMILIA CORP. D/B/A LAS GEMELAS DELI, DON DAVID CORP. d/b/a LAS GEMELAS DELI, and DAVID E. MARCIA, and DELMY CABRERA, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03089 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint asserts the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to provide an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to furnish with a written wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waitress, cashier and kitchen worker, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from May 2018 until March 2026. Mi Familia Corp. d/b/a Las Gemelas Deli, is engaged in the restaurant business with principal executive office and service of process address in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MLD 2724: IRPs Seeks to File Sur-Reply Brief in Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal the Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs' ("IRPs") further reply memorandum in support of their motion for class certification, for appointment of lead counsel and the Plaintiffs' steering committee, and for substitution of class representative. The Sur-Reply references or contains information designated as protected material pursuant to this Court's Protective Order. Accordingly, the same good cause exists to seal these materials as with the previously granted motions such that disclosure of the materials would work a clearly-defined and serious injury, and materials the same or similar to those previously approved to be sealed for the same briefing would be disclosed if not sealed in this instance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PiwpJA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Hudson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 222 Livingston Street, Unit 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Settlement in Lynch Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN LYNCH, et al., V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01502-IM (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin Immergut entered an order preliminarily approving settlement, conditionally certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of class notice, and setting date for final approval hearing. -- The Court conditionally certifies the following class (the "Settlement Class"): "All Persons and entities, and their heirs, successors and assignees, who owned, or had an ownership interest in, or a valid lien on real property that the Defendant Yamhill County obtained through a foreclosure action to satisfy unpaid real estate taxes or other County or local government taxes and fees and associated fees and penalties, as set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, which the County (1) sold for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property, (2) still owns as of the execution date of this Settlement Agreement and may sell for an amount in excess of the unpaid taxes, fees and other costs associated with that property or retain for its own use, may decide to retain for its own use, or without a public auction has transferred or may transfer to a land bank, housing agency, or non-profit housing-related organization and for which the deed for such property was transferred to Yamhill during the Class Period." -- Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (i) All governmental units and entities of any type whatsoever including, but not limited to, U.S. Department of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the State of Oregon, and Yamhill County, except that this provision does not apply to estate administrators pursuing claims on behalf of a deceased Eligible Claimant's estate; (ii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property as to which any Eligible Claimant or Potential Claimant has submitted a request to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth in the Class Notice that is accepted by the Court and that is not timely revoked; (iii) All former holders of an interest in an Eligible Property by reason of a lien to secure payment of a debt or judgment, which debt or judgment has since been satisfied or released; and; (iv) All Potential Claimants who have already resolved their claim for Surplus Proceeds against Yamhill County through a settlement agreement, release or final judicial judgment as to which there is no appeal pending and/or the time to appeal has expired." -- The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Walter and Carolyn Jaquith as the class representatives for the Settlement Class. -- The Court appoints Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class (Fink Bressack; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) and Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class (Sugerman Dahab) (collectively "Class Counsel"). -- A final approval hearing shall be held before the undersigned on Sept. 17, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. Multnomah County is part of the Portland metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D7ytAR at no extra charge.[CC] NEW ORLEANS, LA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA HIGNELL-STARK WHITE SPIDER RENTAL CONCIERGE, LLC., RUSSELL FRANK, SAMANTHA and BOB MCRANEY, JIMMIE TAYLOR, KURT KLEBE, GARETT MAJOUE ZACHARY BENNETT and SUMMIT NOLA III, LLC, v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Case No. 2:19-cv-13773-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action, pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), and further appointing Kurt Klebe, Summit NOLA III, LLC, and their counsel, Dawn Adams Wheelahan, as class representatives and class counsel, respectively. The Defendant is a Louisiana city on the Mississippi River, near the Gulf of Mexico. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gpaOVW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn Adams Wheelahan, Esq DAWN A. WHEELAHAN LLC 1819 Joseph Street New Orleans, LA 70115 Telephone: (512) 689-1153 E-mail: dwheelahan@gmail.com OUT&BACK OUTDOOR: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUT&BACK OUTDOOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04392 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://outandbackoutdoor.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 State Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 4, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Outdoor Research Womens Skytour AscentShell Jacket from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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. She 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, says the suit. 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. Out&Back Outdoor, Inc. operates the website that offers outdoor gear and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PFIZER INC: Intercepts Web Users' Browsing Activity, Myers Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04818 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's egregious privacy violation and breach of patient trust in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the Federal Wiretap Act. The Defendant maintains significant operations in California including at least two wholly-owned subsidiaries located in California. The Defendant also owns and operates a number of publicly available websites. When a patient first arrives at a Pfizer Website, the Defendant presents a cookie consent banner at the bottom of the screen stating: "Pfizer uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance and personalize your customer experience." The banner represents that "You may withdraw your permission at any time." The Defendant's privacy policy reiterates the same contractual representation made in the cookie banner: that patients may opt out of tracking technologies -- thereby preventing the interception of their sensitive "health data" by third party marketers -- if they click "Decline All" on the Cookie Banner, the suit asserts. The cookies and tracking technologies installed by Defendant enable the Third Parties to lurk unknown in the background, silently harvesting identifying and health information the patient shares with the site even after Defendant expressly promised it would not allow this, says the suit. The Plaintiff used Defendant's website at www.pfizer.com to research medications, including Lopid, whose product-specific sub-page is available at www.pfizer.com/products/product detail/lopid. Pfizer, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company whose business consists of discovering, developing, manufacturing, and selling prescription medicines and vaccines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Bid to Decertify Class in Banks Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00878-SKC-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Crews entered an order denying Progressive's motion to decertify the Class. Furthermore, because the Tenth Circuit already denied Progressive's request to review this case and Judge Wang's prior certification of the class, the Court declines to certify this matter for an interlocutory appeal finding Progressive has not met its burden under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Court denies Progressive's request to certify the question to the Tenth Circuit. This case remains set for a jury trial to begin on June 22, 2026. On Dec. 18, 2023, following Plaintiff's motion and full briefing on the question, District Judge Nina Y. Wang certified the following class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Direct Insurance Company to a Colorado resident where the claim was submitted from April 12, 2019, through Dec. 18, 2023, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle." The Defendant provides insurances services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVyzou at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court to Junk Ankus Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY LYNN HIMES AKKUS, et al., v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02933-GLR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George L. Russell, III will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and both Parties' motions for summary judgment, and deny as moot Rocket Mortgage's motion to strike. The Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden as to typicality and adequacy, and the Court will deny Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The conflicting testimony of Lech and Poole creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the overdue balance on the Perrys' account was due to Rocket Mortgage's error in paying the $13.14, or a reporting error by the City of Philadelphia. Accordingly, the Court cannot grant summary judgment to either Party and will deny both Motions as to Plaintiffs' Section 2605(g) claim. The Akkuses filed the original Complaint on behalf of themselves and a class of Rocket Mortgage loan borrowers in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on Oct. 6, 2022. On Nov. 11, 2022, Rocket Mortgage removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On Sept. 2, 2025, after engaging in discovery, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as: "All residential loan borrowers who are natural persons [for] whom Rocket served as a servicer of the loan and collected escrow sums related to the loans at any point in time since Oct. 6, 2019, and: (a) The loans were owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or were insured or guaranteed by the FHA, VA, or USDA; and (b) Between Oct. 6, 2019 and the date of certification, Rocket failed to timely pay the borrower's taxes to the relevant local taxing jurisdiction, or failed to timely pay the borrower's hazard insurance to the borrower's insurance company, on or before the deadline to avoid a penalty; and (c) At the time of the failure, Rocket's records showed that the borrower was current or less than 30 days late in making mortgage payments." Rocket is an American mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v6R5u1 at no extra charge.[CC] ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Wargolet SAC Dismissed w/ Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WARGOLET, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC., THE KROGER CO. and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-00310-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pepper entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiff has identified no compelling argument in favor of the court revisiting its prior ruling. Because the plaintiff either has attempted to bring a claim under a statute with no private right of action or has failed to state a claim for a violation of a regulation, the court must dismiss Count II of the second amended complaint. The plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of: "All persons who purchased products at any Kroger-owned store and paid a price based on a declared net weight that exceeded the actual net weight of the product and a Wisconsin class of all persons who purchased products from Wisconsin stores operated by Roundy's and paid a price based on a declared net weight that exceeded the actual net weight of the product." On February 6, 2026, the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint. The defendants’ motion to dismiss followed. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants have a practice of "overcharging customers in Wisconsin and nationwide for products labeled in their Distribution Centers and fulfillment centers . . . based on mislabeling the weight and pricing of products." Roundy's owns and operates a chain of supermarkets. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fkcruo at no extra charge.[CC] SANDIA SEED: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Deinnocentes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sandia Seed Company LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00757 (N.D. Ind., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.sandiaseed.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Deinnocentes' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on March 27, 2026, Deinnocentes explored the Website and intended to purchase Roma San Marzano Roma Tomato Seeds. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader, Deinnocentes encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny her full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Deinnocentes and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Deinnocentes seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Mary Ann Deinnocentes is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Sandia Seed Company LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of sustainable seed products, such as heirloom, organic, and specialty garden seeds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY L. COOK, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01521-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to set discovery and class certification briefing schedule. The parties and Mr. Shepard agree that the following deadlines will allow sufficient time to complete the sampling of a subset of potential class members' account files and all other discovery, including expert reports and depositions, as well as afford the parties sufficient time for briefing on the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification. Accordingly, the parties propose the following case schedule: 1. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend the pleadings by June 1, 2025. 2. The parties shall complete class-certification discovery by Oct. 2, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's expert reports on class-certification are due on or before Oct. 16, 2026. 4. The Defendant's expert reports as to class-certification are due on or before Nov. 16, 2026. 5. Depositions of class certification experts are due on or before Dec. 23, 2027. 6. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence are due on or before Jan. 15, 2027. 7. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence are due on or before Feb. 15, 2027. 8. The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification, if any, is due on or before March 1, 2027. The Defendant offers financial products and services related to motorcycles, recreational vehicles (RVs) and marine vehicles. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7AvFt1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aurelius Robleto, Esq. Renee M. Kuruce, Esq. ROBLETO KURUCE, PLLC 3706 Butler Street Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 925-8194 Facsimile: (412) 346-1035 E-mail: apr@robletolaw.com rmk@robletolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Blaec C Croft, Esq. Katelyn M. Fox, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Tower Two-Sixty 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 667-6000 Facsimile: (412) 667-7691 E-mail: kdevyer@mcguirewoods.com bcroft@mcguirewoods.com kfox@mcguirewoods.com SENDERO PROVISIONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sendero Provisions Co., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05940 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff James Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader-users. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Waco, TX, Sendero Provisions Co., LLC owns and operates the website, https://senderopc.com, which offers Western-inspired apparel and 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 SHEATH LLC: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Darnell Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sheath, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06401 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.sheathunderwear.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 underwear and apparel, including boxer briefs, trunks, briefs, bralettes, undershirts, loungewear, and athletic underwear.[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 SILVERTS UNIVERSAL: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERTS UNIVERSAL DRESSING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04385 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.silverts.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, 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 Men's Comfort Shoes with Easy Closures - Adjustable Fit from the 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. 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. Silverts Universal Dressing Solutions, Inc. operates the website that offers footwear 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 SKYWEST AIRLINES: Court Sets Biefing Schedule in Skywest Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campbell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. et al., Campbell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02141 (S.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order Setting Biefing Schedule as follows: The Defendant shall file its opposition on or before July 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs may file their optional reply, if any, on or before July 16, 2026. As noted in Section III.A.2 of Judge Robinson's Standing Order for Civil Cases, "an opposing party's failure timely to file an opposition to any motion may be construed as consent to the granting of the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c)." The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). SkyWest provides airline services.[CC] SONDER HOLDINGS: Herring Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHEEDA HERRING, et al. on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SONDER HOLDINGS INC.; SONDER GERMANY GMBH; SONDER HOLDINGS LLC; SONDER GROUP HOLDINGS LLC; SONDER TECHNOLOGY INC.; SONDER HOSPITALITY USA INC.; SONDER PARTNER CO.; SONDER USA INC.; SONDER GUEST SERVICES LLC; and SONDER HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS LLC Case No. 25-52434 (KBO) (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (a) granting the certification of a class comprised of: "All former employees of one or more of the Defendants, who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from any Defendant's facilities across the United States ("Facilities") and were terminated without cause on their part, on or Nov. 10, 2025, within 30 days of that date or thereafter as part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of –(i) mass layoffs and/or plant closings as defined by the WARN Act; and/or (ii) (with respect to the California Employees) mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations as defined under CA WARN; and/or (iii) (with respect to the New York Employees) mass layoffs and/or plant closings as defined by NY WARN – ordered by one or more Defendants and who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class (the "Class")," (b) appointing the Plaintiffs Rasheeda Herring and Shalane Hosein as Class Representatives, and (c) appointing Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm, P.C., Margolis Edelstein, Nettle Law LLC and Cross & Simon, LLC as Class Counsel. Sonder was a company that managed short-term rentals, such as apartment hotels, in North America, Europe, and Dubai. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CbaoLD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-1112 Facsimile: (302) 888-1119 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 - and - Kevin S. Mann, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC 1105 N. Market Street, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-4200 E-mail: kmann@crosslaw.com - and - Brian E. Nettle, Esq. NETTLE LAW LLC 3119 Newtown Avenue, Suite 502 Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (646) 992-9213 E-mail: geno@nettle-law.com SONOCO PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due July 23 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ELENA HERNANDEZ, v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07744-FLA-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving the stipulation to modify the scheduling order regarding the motion for class certification and to set alternative briefing schedule The Court orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification is set to July 23, 2026; 2. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set to Sept. 10, 2026; 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of her motion for class certification is set to Oct. 8, 2026; and 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set to Nov. 6, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Sonoco is an American provider of diversified consumer packaging, industrial products, protective packaging, and packaging supply chain services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jMgHXh at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTH BEACH: Torres Sues for Racial Discrimination, Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN TORRES, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SOUTH BEACH DINER, INC., a Florida Corporation and ISABELLE SAADOUN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-23695 (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for racial and sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act, as well as for unpaid wages under the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff, a gay, Black Latino, Puerto Rican, was employed by the Defendants as a server and bartender from February 26, 2024 until his wrongful termination on August 1, 2025. The complaint alleges that Defendants did not properly pay minimum and overtime wages to Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who worked as tipped employees, mostly servers and bartenders. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff also objected to sexual orientation discrimination, and complained about sexual orientation discrimination. As a result, he was terminated. South Beach Diner, Inc. is a diner restaurant that operates in South Beach, Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 200-23 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com SYNCHRONY BANK: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unexplained Credit Denial ------------------------------------------------------------------ RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04186 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In April 2026, the Plaintiff applied for a line of credit from Defendant. On April 10, the Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying his credit application. The complaint asserts that Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. As a result, Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial, says the suit. Synchrony Bank is a banking institution that provides credit and financial opportunities to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Seeks to Seal Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF VERMONT and THE VERMONT HEALTH PLAN, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00159-gwc (D. Vt.), Non-Party Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. requests that the Court permanently seal portions of Exhibits 2 and 3 (expert reports of Professor Elhauge and Dr. Lamb respectively) to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Exhibits 2 and 3 of the Plaintiffs' motion cite internal Mylan communications and a deposition transcript regarding confidential business strategies and market analysis. Mylan would suffer competitive harm from the public disclosure of the sensitive information contained in these materials. With the presumption of public access in mind, Mylan suggests limited redactions to the citations within the Plaintiffs' motion to ensure the competitively sensitive information is protected. Specifically, Mylan seeks to redact the names of a customer (not a party in this litigation) where Mylan experienced diminished generic uptake as a result of Teva's conduct. Mylan also seeks to permanently seal margin comparisons related to launch dates, Mylan's projected launch date, and statements revealing Mylan’s launch strategy. The information Mylan seeks to permanently seal would provide insight into how Mylan prepares for a product launch, which is information "that a competitor would seek to exploit." Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of non-party Mylan's motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8uGZ7 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Non-Party Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc David M. Pocius, Esq. PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C. Burlington, VT 05402-1307 Telephone: (802) 860-4205 E-mail: dpocius@pfclaw.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Optum Seeks to Keep Lamb Report Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF VERMONT, et al., V. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00159-gwc (D. Vt.), the Non-Party Optum, Inc. requests that the Court allow certain portions of the expert reports of Dr. Russell Lamb and Ms. Laura Craft, MPH, submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, to be kept under seal. Optum's motion to seal has been narrowly tailored to only seek redaction of certain references to Optum's confidential and sensitive business information contained in these select expert reports, while allowing other information that was previously designated Confidential or highly confidential to appear on the public docket without challenge The confidential nature of Optum's information, the risk of competitive harm and disclosure of protected personal medical and/or identifying information of members, and the limited importance of Optum's information in resolving the issues before the Court all weigh in favor of finding that Optum' s privacy rights outweigh the public right of access to the targeted information that Optum requests this Court seal. Optum is a third-party to this litigation that did not voluntarily inject itself into this case. Rather, it was commanded to provide information pursuant to subpoenas issued by the parties. Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company. dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKTexb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: Attorneys for Non-Party Optum, Inc Judith A. Zahid, Esq. Eric W. Buetzow, Esq. ZELLELLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: jzahid@zellelaw.com ebuetzow@zellelaw.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Remain Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF VERMONT and THE VERMONT HEALTH PLAN, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA SALES AND MARKETING, INC., and TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00159-gwc (D. Vt.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order allowing Exhibits 5-15, 35, 41, 73, 81, 83-85, 87, 88, and 102-106 to remain under seal in their entirety and allowing the public versions of Exhibits 2, 3, 20, and 31 to be redacted as requested (the proposed sealed and redacted exhibits collectively, the "Exhibits"), and further that the Court permit the redaction of direct quotes from and descriptions of those Exhibits in the Motion. Teva is requesting that 25 of Plaintiffs' 109 exhibits be sealed in full1 and four of the Plaintiffs' 109 exhibits be partially redacted. The Plaintiffs' Exhibits 5-14 are excerpts from depositions of senior Teva employees under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) that probe Teva's confidential business strategies, pricing, research and development, and regulatory approval plans. The Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2 and 3 are the Plaintiffs' opening expert reports that summarize and quote from Teva's confidential business materials regarding strategies, pricing, research and development, and regulatory approval plans. The Plaintiffs' Exhibits 15, 83, and 85 are materials intended for and used by Teva's Board of Directors. These documents bear on the most sensitive decision making at Teva and reveal the information that Teva's uses in making those determinations. The Plaintiffs' Exhibits 31, 35, 41, 73, 81, 84, 87, 88, and 102-106 are internal Teva communications and presentations regarding Teva's confidential business strategies, competitive research, and contract terms with third parties that are subject to confidentiality provisions. Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O7TxwL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew S. Borick, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC Courthouse Plaza 199 Main Street, Suite 600 Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 863-2375 Facsimile: (802) 862-7512 E-mail: mborick@drm.com - and - Christopher T. Holding, Esq. Daryl L. Wiesen, Esq. Alicia Rubio-Spring, Esq. Tucker DeVoe, Esq. Jordan F. Bock Brian T. Burgess, Esq. Katherine M. Cheng, Esq. Matthew Wisnieff, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1947 E-mail: CHolding@goodwinlaw.com DWiesen@goodwinlaw.com ARubio-Spring@goodwinlaw.com JBock@goodwinlaw.com TDeVoe@goodwinlaw.com BBurgess@goodwinlaw.com KatherineCheng@goodwinlaw.com MWisnieff@goodwinlaw.com TIME CATCHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Time Catcher Apparel Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05934 (N.D. Ill., may 21, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://bronsonshop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Youngren and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 21, 2026, while using a screen reader, the Plaintiff searched for a lightweight jacket. He identified Defendant's website among the top search results. To learn more, he reviewed customer feedback and decided to explore the available offerings. After navigating through the various categories, he became interested in the US Navy Deck Hook Jacket and attempted to purchase it. However, Youngren encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Youngren and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. Plaintiff Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Time Catcher Apparel Inc. operates the website that offers a collection of menswear, including jackets, coats, t-shirts, shirts, hoodies, pants, vests, shorts, hats, bags, and socks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law TOTAL LONGTERM: Class Certification Filing Continued to Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOTAL LONGTERM CARE, INC., a Colorado corporation; INNOVAGE CALIFORNIA PACE-LOS ANGELES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:26-cv-00554-JFW-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order granting stipulation to continue th Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing deadline: The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification by Oct. 3, 2026. Total is a local non-profit established to help families care for the aging parents, relative or spouse by providing and coordinating services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QdghLn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. Guido E. Toscano, Esq. Camryn L. Melanson, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: jason@tomorrowlaw.com gtoscano@tomorrowlaw.com cmelanson@tomorrowlaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Goodman Files Suit Over IEEPA Tariff Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05822 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Unjust Enrichment, and Money Had and Received, resulting from Defendant's practice of charging its customers inflated prices in response to unlawfully imposed tariffs. This lawsuit arises from Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated as a consequence of the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). This windfall is a direct result of Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers—including Plaintiff—through elevated product prices. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid IEEPA tariffs when it imported the products Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers purchased. To offset the cost of paying IEEPA tariffs, Defendant passed those costs on to Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers by inflating the prices of its products. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs at issue. As a result, any IEEPA tariffs charged to Defendant were unlawful for lack of statutory authorization, and Defendant is entitled to seek a refund for any tariffs it paid pursuant to the Tariff Executive Orders through either litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the CAPE refund process, or other administrative refund procedures. Although Defendant has affirmatively sought refunds of the IEEPA tariffs it paid through the protective actions it has filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, Defendant has made no public commitment to return any portion of those anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who, through elevated prices, bore the economic burden of those tariffs, notes the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals to seek redress for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law unjust enrichment and money had and received, and for such other equitable and legal relief as is appropriate, including the imposition of a constructive trust over any IEEPA tariff refund proceeds Defendant receives from the United States, says the suit. Plaintiff John Goodman purchased a new 2026 Toyota Camry in Virginia during the relevant time period. Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. advertises, markets, sells, and distributes motor vehicles throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 1089 Willowcreek Road Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Ex. 3 Facsimile: 312-275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com TRINITY OPERATING: Patton Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larry Patton, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Trinity Operating (USG), LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00027-RAW-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting agreed proposed preliminary approval order as follows: (1) certify the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes; (2) preliminarily approve the Settlement; (3) appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class; (4) appoint Randy C. Smith of Randy C. Smith, PLLC as Class Counsel; (5) approve the form and manner of the proposed Notice; (6) appoint JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; (7) appoint a mutually agreed bank for financial institution asEscrow Agent; and (8) set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and administration, notice, and distribution costs, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has reached a settlement worth $16,500,000.00 in cash for the Plaintiff's class claims for statutory interest owed on late payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under Oklahoma law. The Plaintiff initiated this case on Jan. 28, 2025, with the filing of the Complaint, in which the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated the Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA"). The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the Settlement Class consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from Trinity (or Trinity's designee) for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or whose proceeds from Oklahoma wells were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Trinity; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Trinity, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (4) persons or entities that the Plaintiff's Counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (5) publicly traded oil and gas companies; and (6) FBC Royalty Partners LLC, Staab Holdings LLC, Alan R. Staab, Golden Gas Service Co., Donald M. Woodford, Maria Woodford Rev Trust, Sultan Oil Company, Ark Trust A Revocable Trust DTD 2/14/89, Carol W. Byrd Trust, Heritage Royalties Inc., Spindletop Exploration LLC, Mako Resources LLC, TMN Resources LLC, and Dan and Kelly McClure. The Defendant is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sI9XDF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1310 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com TSI 2021: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Murphy Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TSI 2021 SUB INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04384 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.taylorstitch.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 The Short Sleeve Mechanic Shirt in Atlantic Ripstop 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. He 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. TSI 2021 Sub Inc. operates the website that offers clothing 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 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Abramczyk Breach Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as AUTUMN ABRAMCZYK, TRUDY AGRES, ROXANNE ALLEN, EDITH ANTONIO, PAUL AVERY, PATRICIA BAGGETT, TESS BUSSICK, MICHELLE CARTER, AMANDA CHRISTENSON, BETHANY CONLEY, OLGA DIATLOVA, PATRICIA DONADIO, DAWN DUNCAN, DEBORAH EVANS, LAUREN FOSSEN, ANNA DANAE GRIFFITH, ASHLEY HARBON, MARISSA HATFIELD, J’ANDRE IVORY, ANGELA JOHNSON, KIM KAEHLER, DELMAR KENTNER, SALLY KIRKPATRICK, HAILEY KLEINHEKSEL, ROBIN LANIER, DEANA LEFFERS, MATTHEW LOFORESE, ANNA LOVELL, JOSHUA LOWE, ZOE MADONNA, TAWFIK MAMMAD, BRITTANY MEADOWS, JAN MERRILL, JAMES MORGAN, MARTIN O’MALLEY, TRACY ANNE PHILLIPS, KAELA POITRA, DAVID POWERS, AMANDA RAPE, POLLY RUSH, RACHAEL SCHILLER, RICHARD SCHWALBE, RENE SIMS, CAROL SLACK, PRESLEE THORNE, LORI TYNCH, KALI WARREN, MARK WETZEL, AND ALFRED WILLIAMS, SR., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, OPTUM, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 26C524, was removed from the Tennessee Circuit Court of Davidson County, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 26, 2027. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00689 to the proceeding. The complaint relates to a cyberattack suffered by Defendants on February 21, 2024. The Plaintiffs seek an award of actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and statutory penalties and five years of credit monitoring services for Plaintiffs and the Class. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is an American multinational healthcare and managed insurance company headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Andrew W. Tao, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP One 22 One 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 252-2355 Facsimile: (615) 252-6355 E-mail: tpresnell@bradley.com atao@bradley.com US MED: More Time for Class Certification Discovery Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA LEEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. US MED DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00631-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to extend the class certification discovery and motion deadlines by two months each to allow the parties to complete class related discovery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant request that the Court extend the class certification discovery deadline to Aug. 1, 2026 and the class certification motion deadline to Sept. 1, 2026. The Plaintiff maintains that she requires this ESI discovery prior to deposing the Defendant's corporate representative and moving for class certification and will be prejudiced if required to move for class without this discovery that she has diligently sought. Extending the class certification related deadlines will not require an extension of any other deadline or the trial date. Indeed, despite the parties' agreement to an extension subject to Court approval, the parties presently intend to go forward with the mediation scheduled for June 16, 2026. On Oct. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action asserting a single claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act's robocalls provision. US MED is a provider of diabetes supplies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGYUpD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Leia V. Leitner, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN& DICKER LLP 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 423-7287 Facsimile: (407) 648-1376 E-mail: Leia.Leitner@wilsonelser.com Cheryl.Kujawski@wilsonelser.com YREFY LLC: Faces Bradford Suit Over Unexplained Loan Denial ----------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YREFY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04184 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In April 2026, the Plaintiff applied for a line of credit from Defendant. On April 7, the Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying his loan application. The complaint alleges that Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. As a result, Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial, says the suit. Yrefy, LLC is an online lender that provides loans and credit to consumers across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com ZEZO FOOD: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cuz Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- MIRNA TEC CUZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEZO FOOD SERVICES LLC, d/b/a POPEYE'S LOUISIANA KITCHEN; FRESH POND FOOD LLC, d/b/a POPEYE'S LOUISIANA KITCHEN; AAA FOOD SERVICES LLC, d/b/a POPEYE'S LOUISIANA KITCHEN; ZK FOOD SERVICES LLC; ZEYAD FARR, individually; and KHALED HAJAHMED, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03256 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for its unlawful pay practices and employment policies. The complaint relates that throughout her employment, Plaintiff consistently worked well in excess of forty hours per week. Defendants, however, failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime premium required under federal and state law for any of her hours worked over forty per week. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCRR"); (iii) the spread-of-hours regulations under the NYCRR which require employers to pay employees an additional hour of pay at the minimum wage rate when their workday spans more than ten hours; (iv) the New York City Fair Workweek Law ("NYCFWW"); (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage notices upon hire containing specific categories of accurate information; (vi) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday, as codified in the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "WTPA"); (vii) the requirement that employers file accurate information returns under the Internal Revenue Code; and (viii) any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the facts. Plaintiff Mirna Tec Cuz worked for Defendants at two of their Popeye's franchise locations: first at the restaurant located at 3174 Steinway Street in Astoria, Queens (the "Queens Popeye's"), and then at the restaurant located at 1465 Myrtle Avenue in Brooklyn (the "Brooklyn Popeye's") from March 2024 through December 20, 2024. Defendants Zezo Food Services LLC, Fresh Pond Food LLC, AAA Food Services LLC, and ZK Food Services LLC operate a group of Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen fast-food franchise restaurants in Brooklyn and Queens, New York, owned and controlled by individual Defendants Zeyad Farr and Khaled Hajahmed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Minkoff, Esq. Jeffrey Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 -and - Kenneth J. Katz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J-M Manufacturing Faces Suit Over Toxic Fibers --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH LEAFDALE, individually and as personal representative for the Estate of WILLIAM E. LEAFDALE, deceased, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Individually and as successor in interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; STERLING WANDER LLLP, f/k/a HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor in interest to BENDIX, Case No. N26C-05-191 ASB (Del. Super. New Castle Cty., May 18, 2026) contends that William E. Leafdale was wrongfully exposed to and inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers, an inherently dangerous toxic substance emanating from the use of the products was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew or should have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic, poisonous, and highly deleterious effect upon the health of persons inhaling, ingesting, or otherwise absorbing them. The Defendants were at all times pertinent, directly or indirectly engaged in the specification, mining, manufacturing, distribution, sales, licensing, leasing, installation, removal, or use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, says the suit. The Defendants are engaged in the development, manufacture, distribution, sales, licensing or leasing of equipment, procedures, or technology necessary to mine, manufacture, sell, distribute, install, remove, and use asbestos and asbestos-containing products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq. Andrew C. Dalton, Esq. Michael C. Dalton, Esq. Connor C. Dalton, Esq. Jessica L. Needles, Esq. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Cool Spring Meeting House 1106 West Tenth Street Wilmington, DE 19806 - and - WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 - and - Adam Balick, Esq. Michael Collins Smith, Esq. Ross Carey, Esq. BALICK & BALICK, LLC 600 North King Street, Ste. 10 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-4265 E-mail: msmith@balick.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Reports $1.0BB Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Hardie Industries plc, at March 31, 2026, has reported aggregate asbestos liability of $1,008.6 million, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The liability relates to an agreement to provide long-term funding to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund ("AICF"), a special purpose fund established to provide compensation of proven Australian-related personal injuries. "Auditing management's estimate of the asbestos liability is challenging because the estimation process is based on actuarial estimates of projected future cash flows which are inherently uncertain. The projected cash flows are complex and use subjective assumptions including the projected number of claims, estimated cost of settlement per claim, legal costs, and timing of receipt of claims and settlements. "We obtained an understanding, evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of the Company's internal controls over the identification of claims, review of calculations performed by the Company’s third-party actuary and management's review of the use of historical claim data and actuarial assumptions mentioned above to project the future liability. To evaluate the estimate of the asbestos liability, our audit procedures included, among others, testing the underlying claims data used in the calculation to internal and external data on a sample basis. We involved our actuarial specialists to assist in evaluating the methodologies and key assumptions mentioned above to independently develop a range for the asbestos liability and compared that range to management's recorded liability. We also assessed the adequacy of the related disclosures in the Company's consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YOAVZh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuit Claims J&J of Hiding Risk in Baby Talc --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that families of three women are suing Johnson & Johnson and Red River Talc LLC. The plaintiffs allege J&J knowingly concealed asbestos contamination in its baby talc powder while marketing the product as safe. The bellwether trial is underway in Los Angeles Superior Court. Families of three women who died from ovarian cancer told a California jury that Johnson & Johnson knowingly concealed asbestos risks associated with its talc-based baby powder products for decades. The claims were presented during opening statements in a bellwether trial involving consolidated lawsuits alleging Johnson & Johnson's talc products caused ovarian cancer after years of use. The families of Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken and Geneva Williams -- three women who died of ovarian cancer -- allege J&J knew its talc products were dangerous even as it aggressively marketed them as gentle and pure. Plaintiffs' counsel walked jurors through internal company documents dating from the 1960s through the 1980s, arguing the records show J&J was aware of asbestos in its talc and the health hazards posed by talc itself, Law360 reports. The attorneys argued that rather than alerting consumers, J&J continued for decades to promote the product as safe and encouraged women to use it on themselves and their children. The bellwether trial is the second ovarian cancer trial to proceed in Los Angeles following J&J's failed attempts to resolve talc litigation through bankruptcy proceedings. The first bellwether, conducted in the same courtroom, resulted in a $40 million jury verdict finding the companies' talc products were a substantial contributing cause of two women's ovarian cancer. In February, a Philadelphia jury ordered J&J to pay $250,000 in damages to the estate of Gayle Emerson after finding the company liable for talc cancer allegations. Johnson & Johnson disputes asbestos claims and links to cancer, citing 'global conspiracy' According to Law360, J&J's defense team argued that scientific evidence will show its products never contained asbestos and that talc does not cause cancer, describing the plaintiffs' claims as an implausible global conspiracy theory. Defense counsel told jurors J&J's 2020 U.S. reformulation of its baby powder -- replacing talc with cornstarch -- was driven by consumer misperceptions rather than legitimate health concerns. The current trial is proceeding alongside ongoing disqualification disputes involving lead plaintiffs' firm Beasley Allen Law Firm, which J&J has sought to remove from talc cases nationwide. Several courts, including in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, have granted those motions, but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Theresa Traber denied J&J's bid as untimely, a ruling that was upheld on appeal. Plaintiff John Owens is represented by Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. Plaintiffs Kimberly Hedrick, Eric Tienken and Kevin Tienken are represented by Ari S. Friedman of Wisner Baum. Plaintiff Harold Williams Jr. is represented by Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen Law Firm and Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. The cases are Owens, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. CIVDS1618507; Tienken, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 18CECG01553; Williams Jr. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. CIVDS1807370; and the coordinated proceeding Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, Case No. JCCP4872, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. ********* 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 ***