260615.mbx

260615.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 15, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 118 Headlines 360 DENTAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Pagan Suit Says 586 ROUTE 20 LLC: Tully Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. 700 CREDIT: Class Settlement in Young Suit Gets Initial Nod ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Joint Omnibus Bid to Seal Docs OK'd ADVOCATE AURORA: Shaw Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ADVOCATE AURORA: Shaw Seeks to File Docs Under Restricted Access ADVOCATE AURORA: Uriel Pharmacy Seeks Class Certification AI CALIFORNIA LLC: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIKO IMPORTERS: Class Discovery Extension Sought AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS: Moseby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALASKA AIR GROUP: Abrams Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ALLIANCE TECHNICAL: Hawthorne Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AMAZON.COM INC: Aug. 31 Antitrust Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set AMERICAN WATER: Bradford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: $6.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 10 ANTILLANA & METRO: Settlement in Huerta Gets Prelim Approval AOB PRODUCTS: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users APPLE INC: Parties Must Submit Updated Case Schedule by June 22 ARCHWAY MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jemiola Says ASSOC. OF SOCIAL: Alameda Exam Discrimination Suit Dismissal Upheld ATKORE INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Antitrust MDL AUDIONOVA LLC: Campbell Sues Over Disclosure of Patients' Info AXLE OF DEARBORN: McLean Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BABY LIST: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, See Alleges BADGER METER: Steamfitters Local 449 Sues Over Share Price Drop BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration Order in Overdraft Fees Suit Affirmed BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Simmons Alleges BARNHART CRANE: Unable to Protect Private Info, Watkins Alleges BEI FRAMING: Kempf Class Suit Seeks Court-Facilitated Notice BENTON COUNTY, AK: Summary Judgment in "Farella" Vacated BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL: Curran Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by July 15 BREAKFAST CAPITAL: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers BRIAN ENGLISH: Must Release Vega from Custody by June 15 CANON BUSINESS: Bustamante Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Iseman Suit Removed to D. Colorado CAPUCINNE LTD: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CARUSO MANAGEMENT: Amador Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CASPARI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says CASUAL MALE STORE: Thompson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CCL LABEL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says CE SOLUTIONS: Breach of Contract in "Richardson" Revived CETERA FINANCIAL: Sager Sues Over Exploitative Sweep Programs CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Dang Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Ruschman Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Schism Says CHARTER SENIOR: Pare Seeks to Recover Caregivers' Unpaid OT Wages CHINA INT'L: Sued Over Dry Shipping Container Price‑Fixing Scheme CLARITY COSMETICS: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COBB MECHANICAL: Carr Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HEALTH: Becker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CVS PHARMACY: Wittman Balks at Mislabeled Capsules' Dosage Amount DANIEL WELLINGTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vaughn Says DANSKO LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, McLean Suit Says DAS LABS LLC: Ruchman Sues Over Falsely Labeled Products DELTA DENTAL: Cudahy Dental Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin DELTA FACILITIES: Graham Sues to Recover Unpaid Back Wages DELUXE AUTO CARRIERS: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DENTAL SERVICE: Stanley Levenson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts DENTAQUEST GROUP: Cantu Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DENTAQUEST GROUP: May Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DENTAQUEST GROUP: Straud Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DERMFX INC: Shipstad Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure DICK'S SPORTING: Consolidated Derivative Suits Stayed DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Securities Class Action Dismissed DOLLAR GENERAL: Sanchez Sues Over Toxic Fragrances at Facilities EAST WEST BANK: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Privacy Invasion EMPOWER ADVISORY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Russell Says EMPOWER GROUP: Russell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII EPATH DIGITAL: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California ESTEE LAUDER: $210MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 20 EUROFINS NSC: Boring Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges EXXON MOBIL: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Class Cert Sur-Reply FAST EASY: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Coffey TCPA Class Suit FCA US: 9th Circuit Amends Arbitration Ruling in Olson Class Suit FIVE BELOW INC: Securities Actions Stayed FLUKE CORPORATION: Sauerland Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII FUJITEC AMERICA: Eller Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes G.L.O.M. SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Negrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GASTRO HEALTH: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Voletsky Says GASTRO HEALTH: Love Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info GATEHOUSE MEDIA: 6th Cir. Remands "Ewalt" to State Court GENERAL MOTORS: Menaker Sues Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs GIBSON BRANDS INC: McWhirter Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOLDEN HEAVEN: $1.7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 GOVCIO LLC: Reider Sues Over Unlawful Obtaining of Information GREATMATS.COM: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Fisher Sues Over Discriminatory Practices GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Artiega Settlement Approval & Class Cert. Upheld H&M HENNES & MAURITZ: Iniguez Suit Removed to E.D. Washington H. SOLIMAN MEDICAL: McCormick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HCMP INC: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, See Says HONEST COMPANY: July 13 Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set IGNITE MEDICAL: Shannon Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime IONQ INC: Garcia Sues Over Privacy Bait and Switch Scheme IP HOLDINGS UNLTD: Lamperis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit JAVIER'S-DTLA LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KENDRA SCOTT: Cumor Class Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. KENT WATER SPORTS: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KLN ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of "Trammel" with Prejudice Reversed KODIAK UNION ROOFING: Swearengin Suit Removed to E.D. California KROGER CO: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification Order in Solano LAO YU: Marcelino Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LAVENDER LINGERIE: Hoffert Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Surcharges LECTRIC EBIKES: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LEDCOR INDUSTRIES: Manzini Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages LIME ROCK: Suit Seeks Recovery of Interest on Delayed Oil Proceeds LITHIA MOTORS: Arbitration Denial in Olsaba Suit Affirmed on Appeal LOS ANGELES, CA: Guzambak Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Charges LUXAPOLISH LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LUXURBAN HOTELS: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8 LYRICAL LEMONADE: Ochoa Sues Over Unpaid Wages MARIN COUNTY: Demurrer Dismissal Affirmed in Hiller Water Rate Case MDL 3180: Dupixent Product Litigation Consolidated to D. N.J. MDL 3181: Spinal Cord Product Suits Consolidated to C. Calif. MDL 3185: Data Breach Litigation Transferred to E.D. Mo. MDL 3186: JPML Denies Bid to Centralize 8 Actions MDL 3186: JPML Won't Centralize 7 Actions MDL 3187: Fertilizer Antitrust Litigation Transferred to Kansas MDL No. 3108: Data Breach Litigation Transferred to Minnesota META PLATFORMS: Faces Hobbs Suit Over Copyright Infringement MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Time Designate Expert Witness Extended MILAN LASER: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Futrell Says MILLWORK ENTERPRISES: Catahho Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation MOSAIC COMPANY: Toenjes Balks at Fertilizer Price-fixing Scheme MOTION PT MANAGEMENT: Ireland Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation NATALS INC: Heath Sues Over False Advertising on Vitamin Products NATIONAL PUBLIC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, St. Mary Says NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Rulings Upheld in Bloom Suit NAVISTAR INC: Hirschbach Motor Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Hernandez-Reyes Sues Over Unprotected Data NEW YORK, NY: Archer Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge NEW YORK: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Emergency Removal Policy NURO POUCHES INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Price Sues Over Unpaid Mandated Wages ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Steward Suit Over Unlawful Credit Denial OZIUM HOLDINGS: Pelaez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PATRICK LECHLEITNER: Vadapally Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan PPG INDUSTRIES: Patton Sues Over Production Operators' Unpaid OT PRINCE GOURMET DELI: Abdel-Qader Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PRODUCTION PLUS: Carter Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. PROTAS SPIVOK: Order Denying Arbitration Bid in Jackson Suit Upheld PUP ABOVE INC: Soto Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Consolidate Securities Suit RADIO SYSTEMS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RALPH LAUREN: Rippman Sues Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs RELIABLE INSURANCE: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Class, Derivative Actions RESTAURANT RUNNER: Moncrieff Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California RICHTER & PHILLIPS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Rosado Suit Removed to S.D. New York RIVER LIGHT: Farve Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ROUTE APP INC: Mertson Files Suit in N.D. New York RUSCIO INSTITUTE: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RUTGERS: Mohammad Suit Removed to D. New Jersey SEATGEEK INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Scruggs Says SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: $70MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28 SIERRA LIVING: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SKYWEST AIRLINES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 2 SOL AND SELENE: Tesch Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Dumas Sues Over Failure to Secure Information STS OPERATING: Funderburk Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info SUNSTATES SECURITY: Panorelli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SYDNEY EVAN: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TENNESSEE: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Class of Noncitizens TEXAS CAPITAL: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Martin Says TEXAS CAPITAL: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Shah Alleges TGB RESTAURANT: Niass Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages THC ORANGE COUNTY: Rehan Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline THULE INC: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TODD BLANCHE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification TOOLSTODAY.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Seeks to Certifies Classes TRADER JOE'S: McIntosh Suit Transferred to C.D. California TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Hometown Balks at HVAC Equipment Price Fixing TRANS UNION: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid TRUSTILE DOORS LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UMBRELLA SCENTS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing in Vollera Due March 15, 2027 UNITED PARCEL: Ross Seeks to Recover Payment of Unlawful Tariffs UNITED STATES: Angye Sues Over Rampant Abuses in Detention Center UNITED STATES: Bid for Leave to File Supplemental Brief OK'd UNITED STATES: Candemeres Sues Over Unfair Push-up Requirement US CITYLINK: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. US FOODS: Bradford Files ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement US MED: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines USA: Prelim Injunction for DEI Termination Class Affirmed in Thakur USHEALTH ADVISORS: 4th Cir. Orders Arbitration in Sessoms TCPA Case VACPARTSWAREHOUSE.COM LLC: Stewart Files Suit Over Data Breach VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Parham Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages VISION OF HOPE: Plaintiffs Must Refile Class Cert Bid VIVID SEATS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Scruggs Says VONS COMPANIES INC: Lloyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WALMART INC: Keets Sues Over Unlawful Lie Detector Test WALMART INC: Martinez Seeks Refund of Tariff Overcharges WATERFORD HOTEL: Christopher Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Breydo Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania WILD EGGS: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, See Says WOODFORDS FAMILY: Fails to Secure Personal lnfo, Taylor Suit Says ZEN EDUCATE INC: Lewis Suit Removed to N.D. California ZULILY LLC: Smith Seesk to Certify Classes of Employees ********* 360 DENTAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Pagan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 360 DENTAL PC, Defendant, Case No. 260600477 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its patients, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. 360 Dental PC is a premier dental care provider in Northeast Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com 586 ROUTE 20 LLC: Tully Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 586 Route 20 LLC, et al. The case is styled as James Tully, Alyssa Groat, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. 586 Route 20 LLC, Raven3 Homebuyers LLC, AJ3 Management Services LLC, Jake Deraaff, Austin Deraaff, John Doe, ABC Corp, Case No. EF2026-541 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Greene Cty., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Commercial.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Thomas Houston, Esq. THE TOWNE LAW FIRM, P.C. PO Box 15072 500 New Karner Road Albany, NY 12212-5072 700 CREDIT: Class Settlement in Young Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Young v. 700 Credit, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-13747-RJW-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge White entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement finding it is likely to certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all persons who are directors, officers, and agents of Defendant, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (2) governmental entities; (3) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (4) all Settlement Class Members who properly and timely opt-out of the Settlement. 2. The Plaintiffs Patricia Young, Jeffrey Couron, Richard Blocker, James Bittinger, Ronnell Cousar, Richard Foxwell, Michelle Sands, Keir Milan, Michael Miller, and Elton Neal's are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Gary Klinger of Milberg, PLLC, and E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C. are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Robert J. White on Dec. 15, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. i The Defendant provides credit reporting and compliance solutions to automotive dealerships in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4EvbWG at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Joint Omnibus Bid to Seal Docs OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joanne Noriega v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 1:23-cv-04014-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order granting the Parties' joint omnibus motion to seal or redact materials filed in connection with the Daubert and summary judgment motions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NaPoPH at no extra charge.[CC] ADVOCATE AURORA: Shaw Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK SHAW, DEBRA SHAW, HALEY SHAW, on their own and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC., and AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00157-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to pursue antitrust claims against Defendants, -- Appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives for the class, and -- Appointing Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP as lead counsel and Stafford Rosenbaum LLP as co-lead class counsel. The Plaintiffs request the Court schedule a hearing for oral argument on this motion. Advocate is a non-profit, faith-based health care system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZd7vt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory J. Dubinsky, Esq. Jack L. Millman, Esq. Zachary A. Kerner, Esq. Kevin D. Benish, Esq. Brian T. Goldman, Esq. Andrew Sgarro, Esq. Brent E. Bomkamp, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 837-5151 E-mail: gdubinsky@hsgllp.com jmillman@hsgllp.com zkerner@hsgllp.com kbenish@hsgllp.com bgoldman@hsgllp.com asgarro@hsgllp.com bbomkamp@hsgllp.com - and - Erin K. Deeley, Esq. Erin E. Rome, Esq. David P. Hollander, Esq. Ginger Pinkerton, Esq. STAFFORD ROSENBAUM, LLP 222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 256-0226 Facsimile: (608) 259-2600 E-mail: edeeley@staffordlaw.com erome@stafford.com dhollander@staffordlaw.com gpinkerton@stafford.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Shaw Seeks to File Docs Under Restricted Access ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK SHAW; DEBRA SHAW; AND HALEY SHAW, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. AND AURORA HEALTH CARE INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00157-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file documents under restricted access : The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) grant them leave to preliminarily file the documents in Charts A and B as restricted only to the parties; (2) rule on the objections set forth in Charts A and B; and (3) grant them leave to permanently file the Class Certification Brief and the documents in Chart C as restricted only to the parties. The Motion seeks to preliminarily restrict confidential documents that other parties contend contain reference to, or discussion of, confidential business information about the parties, until the Court rules on the objections set forth herein. It also seeks to restrict information about the Plaintiffs' health records. The Motion seeks leave to file as restricted Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel, as it quotes from and relies upon documents that producing parties contend to be protected from disclosure. The Plaintiffs are filing two versions of the Class Certification Brief: a redacted version and a restricted unredacted version. In addition, the Motion pertains to three categories of documents: documents produced by Defendants Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. and Aurora Health Care Inc. ("AAH"), documents produced by various third parties ("Third Parties"), and documents submitted by the Plaintiffs. Advocate is a non-profit, faith-based health care system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPgaQF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory J. Dubinsky, Esq. Jack L. Millman, Esq. Zachary A. Kerner, Esq. Kevin D. Benish, Esq. Brian T. Goldman, Esq. Andrew Sgarro, Esq. Brent E. Bomkamp, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 837-5151 E-mail: gdubinsky@hsgllp.com jmillman@hsgllp.com zkerner@hsgllp.com kbenish@hsgllp.com bgoldman@hsgllp.com asgarro@hsgllp.com bbomkamp@hsgllp.com - and - Erin K. Deeley, Esq. Erin E. Rome, Esq. David P. Hollander, Esq. Ginger Pinkerton, Esq. STAFFORD ROSENBAUM, LLP 222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 900 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 256-0226 Facsimile: (608) 259-2600 E-mail: edeeley@staffordlaw.com erome@stafford.com dhollander@staffordlaw.com gpinkerton@stafford.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Uriel Pharmacy Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as URIEL PHARMACY HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; URIEL PHARMACY, INC.; HOMETOWN PHARMACY; AND HOMETOWN PHARMACY HEALTH and WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. and AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00610-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All entities that purchased in-network Healthcare Services directly from Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. or Aurora Health Care, Inc. ("AAH") providers in Eastern Wisconsin at any time during the period from May 24, 2018 up to and including Dec. 31, 2022 (the "Class Period"), to the extent such purchases were made pursuant to contracts between AAH and any of the following Network Vendors: Anthem/Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, United Healthcare, Cigna Healthcare, Humana Inc., Wisconsin Physicians Services, Health Payment Systems, and/or Trilogy Health Solutions.1 Excluded from the Class are AAH, and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all federal governmental entities. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoint Berger Montague PC and Fairmark Partners LLP as Lead Class Counsel. Advocate Aurora is a non-profit, faith-based health care system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yfE6Oi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric L. Cramer, Esq. David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: ecramer@bergermontague.com ccoslett@bergermontague.com dsorensen@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com szimmerman@ bergermontague.com - and - Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. Yinka Onayemi, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (619) 507-4182] E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com yinka@fairmarklaw.com - and - Timothy Hansen James Cirincione John McCauley HANSEN REYNOLDS, LLC 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 455-7676 E-mail: thansen@hansenreynolds.com jcirincione@hansenreynolds.com jmccauley@hansenreynolds.com - and - Kevin M. St. John, Esq. BELL GIFTOS ST. JOHN LLC 5325 Wall Street, Suite 2200 Madison, WI 53718 Telephone: (608) 216-7990 E-mail: kstjohn@bellgiftos.com AI CALIFORNIA LLC: Andrade Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AI California, LLC. The case is styled as Ileanna Andrade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AI California, LLC, Aldi, Inc., Case No. 26STCV17181 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach Of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." AI California and Aldi Inc. are in the Food and Cosmetics, Food Industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 AIKO IMPORTERS: Class Discovery Extension Sought ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clase 1111 LLC, a Delaware LLC v. Aiko Importers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00841-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class discovery. Aiko Importers provides alcoholic beverages. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8zfjo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brent Ney, Esq. NEY RHEIN WILLIAMS, LLC 265 South Culver St. Lawrenceville, GA 30046 Telephone: (770) 605-8303 Facsimile: (770) 637-5057 E-mail: william@neyrhein.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan Kaiser, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 230 West Monroe St, Suite 1405 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 327-3327 Facsimile: (312) 884-7352 E-mail: rkaiser@awglaw.com AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS: Moseby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marvin Moseby, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 26CV013081 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. -- https://www.airproducts.com/ -- is a U.S.-based international corporation whose principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com ALASKA AIR GROUP: Abrams Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hope Abrams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26-2-13241-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01889. The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the accident, they have suffered the loss of the opportunity to control how their Private Information is used, the diminution in value of their Private Information, the compromise and continuing publication of their private information, and out-of-pocket costs associated with the prevention, detection, recover, and remediation from identity theft or fraud.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy D. Shea, Esq. 801 Kirkland Ave, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone 206.204.6800 Email: tshea@wshblaw.com ALLIANCE TECHNICAL: Hawthorne Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jack Hawthorne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCE TECHNICAL GROUP, a Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-13508-8 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01929. The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights by failing to pay him all wages that were entitled. Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that Defendant denied Plaintiff overtime wages for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week at "one and one-half" times the regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff's third cause of action alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under WAC 296-126-092, which requires that employers give employees a ten-minute break for every four hours of work. the Plaintiff's fourth cause of action alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under WAC 296-126-092, which requires that employers give employees a thirty-minute meal period when they work more than five hours in a shift, and an additional thirty-minute meal period when they work more than three hours overtime. The Plaintiff further alleges Defendant failed to pay and provide paid sick leave in compliance with Washington law. The Plaintiff claims that he was not paid all wages owed at termination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619.693.7727 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovea.com The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Meghan A. McNabb, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Facsimile: (206) 682-7908 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com mmcnabb@fisherphillips.com AMAZON.COM INC: Aug. 31 Antitrust Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased five or more new physical goods from third-party sellers on Amazon's marketplace on or after May 26, 2017, you may be a class member in an ongoing class action lawsuit. A lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Court") against Amazon.Com, Inc. ("Amazon"). The lawsuit alleges that Amazon violated federal antitrust laws by using its market power to impose and enforce an anti-discounting policy on third-party sellers that allowed for inflated commission fees and caused higher consumer prices. Third-party sellers are businesses that sell goods directly to consumers through Amazon's marketplace, as opposed to goods sold directly by Amazon itself. Plaintiffs say that Amazon's enforcement of its anti-discounting policy prevents third-party sellers from offering lower prices for their goods on competing platforms. Plaintiffs say that these policies have anticompetitive effects because they eliminate competition among and across United States online retail marketplaces. Plaintiffs contend that they, and the class of consumers they represent, have been harmed by Amazon's actions because they paid more for goods on Amazon's Marketplace that they would have paid absent Amazon's allegedly anticompetitive conduct. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Amazon violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. On August 6, 2025, the Court certified a Class for purposes of litigating the merits of the case. The Court has appointed Class Representatives and the following lawyers to represent you and other Class members: HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 5th Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10016 These lawyers are called "Class Counsel." Amazon denies any wrongdoing, and the Court has not yet decided whether Amazon did anything wrong. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT DO NOTHING - Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain rights. By doing nothing, you will be bound by the Court's judgment, whether favorable or not. You will keep open the possibility of getting money or benefits, if any are awarded, from this lawsuit. But you will give up any right to sue Amazon separately about the claims in this lawsuit. ASK TO BE EXCLUDED BY AUGUST 31, 2026 - Get out of this lawsuit. Get no benefits from it. If you ask to be excluded, you cannot get money or benefits, if any are awarded, from this lawsuit. But you will keep any right to sue Amazon separately about the claims in this lawsuit. This is the only option that allows you to retain your right to sue Amazon for claims that would otherwise be released by a judgment in the lawsuit, whether that judgment is favorable to the Class or not. HIRE YOUR OWN LAWYER - Hire a lawyer to represent you in this lawsuit. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you at your own expense. This is not required. If you have any questions, you may contact Class Counsel listed above or the Class Action Administrator at De Coster v. Amazon.com, Inc. Class Action Administrator, PO Box 5594, Portland, OR 97228-5594. Certain important case documents are available at: www.AmazonAntitrustLitigation.com. You may also obtain information regarding the lawsuit on the Court docket in this lawsuit, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 2310, Seattle, WA 98101, between 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Honorable John H. Chun is overseeing the Action. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR CONTACT AMAZON, AMAZON'S ATTORNEYS, THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO ASK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT. AMERICAN WATER: Bradford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Water Resources, LLC. The case is styled as David Bradford, and all others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., American Water Resources, LLC, Case No. 26CV013518 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty." American Water Resources Insurance Services -- https://www.awrusa.com/ -- offers voluntary water line and sewer line protection program for San Francisco homeowners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD 490 43rd St., Ste. 122 Oakland, CA 94609-2138 Phone: 202-350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com AMYLYX PHARMACEUTICALS: $6.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly traded securities of Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMLX): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION To: All those who purchased or otherwise acquired Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Amylyx") securities between November 11, 2022, and November 8, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that Plaintiff Oliver Shih, on behalf of himself and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Amylyx, Joshua B. Cohen, Justin B. Klee, James M. Frates, and Margaret Olinger (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims against the Defendants in the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $6,500,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton either in person or remotely, at the Court's discretion, on September 10, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Courtroom No. 4, 3rd Floor, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated May 4, 2026; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and award to Plaintiff. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another written notice. Information about the hearing will be posted at www.strategicclaims.net/Amylyx/. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.strategicclaims.net/Amylyx/ or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim or for copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Samantha Daniels, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 www.pomlaw.com (212) 661-1100 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked or submitted online no later than August 31, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than August 11, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement; Lead Counsel's application for awards of attorneys' fees, expenses, and award to Lead Plaintiff; and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must submitted to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than August 24, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: May 12, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ANTILLANA & METRO: Settlement in Huerta Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO SANTIAGO HUERTA and CLEMENTINA DURAN, and MELVIN RECAREY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ANTILLANA & METRO SUPERMARKET, CORP., and ALRA CORP., and 639 GRAND ST. MEAT & PRODUCE CORP., and OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-00002-RA-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wang entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: -- The Court certifies the settlement classes defined as: a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all Defendants' non-managerial supermarket employees, who worked at any time during the period of Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 6, 2025 (hereinafter, the "New York Class"); b. Under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), all Defendants' non-managerial supermarket employees, who worked at any time during the period of Jan. 1, 2017, to Feb. 6, 2025, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby opting into the settlement and, in so doing, releasing their FLSA claims (hereinafter, the "Federal Class," and collectively with the New York Class, the "Settlement Classes"). -- By no later than June 18, 206, the Defendants are to furnish to the Claims Administrator and New York Class Counsel, in electronic form, with a list of all New York Class Members. -- Class Counsel shall file the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval by on or before Oct. 5, 2026. -- The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the settlement on Nov. 4, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Antillana is a New York-based grocery and supermarket operator. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pG3LDU at no extra charge.[CC] AOB PRODUCTS: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AOB Products Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06369 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.bubba.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff Bennett searched online for fishing tools while planning to acquire equipment for fishing activities. During his search, he discovered Defendant's website, which appeared to offer a selection of fishing and angling tools designed for cutting, handling, measuring, and maintaining fishing gear. After browsing the website and reviewing its product offerings, Bennett proceeded with the intent to purchase a fillet knife. However, he encountered several accessibility barriers that ultimately prevented him from completing the transaction. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Bennett 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, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, unclear labels for interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bennett 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. AOB Products Company operates the website that offers fishing and angling tools and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law APPLE INC: Parties Must Submit Updated Case Schedule by June 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRADY HENDRIX, ET AL., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-07558-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order re timing and staging of motions for summary judgment and class certification : The Court held a case management conference on May 11, 2026 regarding the parties’ proposed case schedule and dispute as to the timing and staging of motions for summary judgment and class certification. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and arguments of the parties, and having reviewed the case analogies provided, the Court has determined that it will resolve any summary judgment motions before setting a briefing schedule on the issue of class certification, if necessary. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and submit, by no later than June 22, 2026, an updated joint proposed case schedule up to and including any hearing on any motions for summary judgment. The parties are further instructed to discuss and consider whether earlier summary judgment motions on the core issue of fair use are possible as part of the scheduling decision. If desired, the parties may request an additional conference to discuss this issue with the Court by contacting the courtroom deputy. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yOrYoe at no extra charge.[CC] ARCHWAY MARKETING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jemiola Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIENNE JEMIOLA and JOHN JEMIOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHWAY MARKETING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02731-PJS-JFD (D. Minn., May 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other customers and/or employees, including, but not limited to, their names and Social Security numbers. According to Defendant's submission to the Maine Attorney General's office, on September 20, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized party gained access to its network on or about September 19, 2025. The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its customers' and/or employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy Defendant's failures and its consequences. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the data breach, says the suit. Archway Marketing Services, Inc. provides marketing services. The Company offers marketing operations management solutions that include fulfillment, consumer promotions, rebates, and business intelligence services to logistics, automotive, financial, food and beverages, publishing, and retail industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com ASSOC. OF SOCIAL: Alameda Exam Discrimination Suit Dismissal Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TARA ALAMEDA, KAMECA BALAN, AND DEBBIE HAMELL-PALMER, ON THEIR OWN BEHALVES AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORK BOARDS, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-2531 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state claim. The Plaintiffs-Appellants bring their putative class action against Defendant-Appellee ASWB. They allege discrimination on the basis of race and national origin in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). ASWB develops and administers examinations to individuals seeking to obtain state licenses as Licensed Master Social Workers ("LMSW") and Licensed Clinical Social Workers ("LCSW"). In New York, the state Education Department issues LMSW and LCSW licenses. New York requires individuals seeking to obtain either license to pass the relevant ASWB exam. At issue in this case are the LMSW and LCSW exams, which are two different tests. The Plaintiffs have each taken and failed ASWB exams multiple times. Alameda and Balan have each taken and failed the LMSW exam, and Hamell-Palmer has taken and failed the LCSW exam. As a result, they have been unable to obtain licenses from New York State and consequently lost out on opportunities for employment and career advancement. The Plaintiffs allege that Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals perform significantly worse on the LCSW and LMSW exams than white test-takers. They further allege that ASWB has known about these racial disparities in testing outcomes for years yet has failed to modify their exams. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim that ASWB intends for the LCSW and LMSW exams to produce better outcomes for white test-takers. They bring claims against ASWB alleging a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981. They also bring a disparate impact claim under Title VII, as well as a state law claim under the NYSHRL. On ASWB's motion to dismiss, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' federal claims on their merits and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claim. The Plaintiffs appeal. First, the Second Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs' Title VII claims fail because they do not establish an employer-employee relationship with ASWB. The New York Education Department, not the Plaintiffs' employers, issues LMSW and LCSW licenses and requires passage of ASWB exams as part of the licensing process. Because ASWB is not acting on behalf of, or as an agent of, any of the Plaintiffs' employers, the necessary employment relationship for Title VII liability is not present. Next, the Plaintiffs also fail to state a plausible Section 1981 claim because they do not adequately allege intentional discrimination by ASWB. Reliance on the Rutgers Study is improper for the LMSW exam because the study does not address that exam. The alleged statistical disparities in LCSW pass rates are insufficient by themselves to rule out non-discriminatory explanations, and the Plaintiffs offer no additional factual allegations suggesting intent. Lastly, the Second Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs waive any challenge to the district court's decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their NYSHRL claim because they do not properly contest it on appeal. In any event, the court finds no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction given the early stage of the litigation. However, because the district court did not specify that the state claim was dismissed without prejudice, the Second Circuit modifies the judgment to make clear that the NYSHRL claim is dismissed without prejudice. The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and finds them without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed as modified. A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order is available at https://sl1nk.com/y81tyod. MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, ESQ. -- sussman1@frontiernet.net -- Sussman & Associates, Goshen, NY, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. JENNIFER ANCONA SEMKO -- jennifer.semko@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker & McKenzie LLP, Washington, DC, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ATKORE INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Antitrust MDL ---------------------------------------------------- Atkore Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated Wednesday, June 3, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, June 4, 2026, that as of June 3, 2026, the company entered into settlement agreements with the three putative classes in the class action litigations by entering into a settlement agreement. The latter remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Multiple putative class action lawsuits have been filed in 2024 and 2025 against the company and several other manufacturers of extruded PVC pipe and conduit products. In September 2024, those cases were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a case captioned "In re PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation." Under the settlement agreement, the company has agreed to pay an aggregate of $50 million into a settlement fund to settle all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, by the plaintiffs, relating to the alleged conduct at issue. If this is preliminarily approved by the court, the settlement payment will be made on or about 21 days thereafter. The settlement amount is inclusive of the recovery amount for class members, any fees for plaintiff's counsel, and the costs of administering the settlement. If approved, the settlement class members will release all potential antitrust claims related to the allegations against the Company, including any parens patriae claims that might otherwise be brought on their behalf. Plaintiffs have agreed to file their motion seeking preliminary approval of the agreement as soon as practicable. The execution does not constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability, and the company does not admit fault or liability. The claims asserted are directed at a number of participants across the industry, including several other manufacturers of PVC pipe and conduit, and are premised on alleged coordinated conduct within the industry. Atkore Inc. is a manufacturer of electrical and mechanical products for nonresidential construction and renovation, serving a range of customers in the industrial, commercial and infrastructure markets. The Companys portfolio includes conduit, cable management systems, and related electrical and mechanical products distributed across North America and select international markets. AUDIONOVA LLC: Campbell Sues Over Disclosure of Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUDIONOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06359 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is an action to recover statutory and equitable damages for Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage, and use of putative class members' personal health information in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all AudioNova patients who accessed hearing care services on www.AudioNova.com The complaint alleges that in pursuit of profit and without regard for its patients' medical privacy, Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with Google, LLC, an unknown third party, to intercept its patients' communications as they seek hearing care services on the website. This is enabled through Defendant's surreptitious installation of complex computer code on the Website, which serves to track and disclose AudioNova patients' activity, in real time, to Google, says the suit. Despite its legal and ethical duties to protect patient information, the Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking hearing care services and breached its patients' trust -- violating federal and state law, the suit contends. In June 2022, the Plaintiff visited the website to make an appointment for hearing care services. At all relevant times hereto, the Plaintiff maintained an active Google account. AudioNova, LLC purports to provide patient-centered, expert hearing care to its patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com AXLE OF DEARBORN: McLean Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly McLean, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXLE OF DEARBORN, INC., d/b/a DETROIT AXLE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04579 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.detroitaxle.com, in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff brings this civil action against Axle of Dearborn, Inc., d/b/a Detroit Axle, the operator of www.detroitaxle.com, for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive retail ecommerce platform in a manner that is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website—and therefore to the goods and services offered therein—constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.detroitaxle.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Without remediation, Plaintiff and other blind consumers remain excluded from equal participation in Defendant's online marketplace, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of the protected class of individuals under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant operates a retail ecommerce platform through which consumers can browse automotive parts, review part-specific compatibility and specification information, and purchase items directly online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BABY LIST: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, See Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Baby List, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1123 (S.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.babylist.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that See has attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on April 3, 2026. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader, See encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to See. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against See 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. See 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 Aaron See is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Baby List, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of baby care products, including strollers, car seats, cribs, feeding essentials, diapering supplies, clothing, toys, nursery furniture, and safety items.[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 BADGER METER: Steamfitters Local 449 Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 RETIREMENT SECURITY FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BADGER METER, INC., KENNETH C. BOCKHORST, ROBERT A. WROCKLAGE, and DANIEL R. WELTZIEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04660 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026) arises out of Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the drivers of Badger Meter's "record" financial results, demand for the Company's products, and its prospects for continued growth. The complaint relates that during the Class Period, Defendants told investors that Badger Meter's strong financial results reflected "ongoing favorable industry trends," "secular growth drivers," and "solid operating execution." They likewise touted "strong" demand and said they were seeing "robust order pacing and a strong bid pipeline that positions us well for continued sales and earnings growth," and that Badger Meter possessed a "long runway" for growth. In truth, rather than reflecting durable, demand-driven growth, Badger Meter's financial results were driven by the Company's practice of pulling-forward customer orders, which concealed weakening demand and deteriorating near-term order trends. The truth was revealed to investors over the course of a series of disappointing quarterly financial reports between July 2025 and April 2026. On July 22, 2025, Badger Meter reported disappointing financial results for 2Q 2025, including earnings per share ("EPS") below consensus estimates, declining revenue growth, deteriorating margins, and warned to expect absolute sales to decline sequentially in the third quarter of 2025. Instead of acknowledging the results reflected an exhaustion of previously pulled-forward revenue, Defendants said it was "simply the nature of the business" and blamed a gap caused by the completion of certain large AMI projects and delays in the start of others and assured that demand softness was "not a concern." Next, on January 28, 2026, Badger Meter reported disappointing financial results for 4Q 2025, including missed revenue expectations and a "6% sequential decline in utility water sales." However, Defendants continued to blame the poor results on "previously communicated project pacing effects." On April 17, 2026, Badger Meter reported disappointing 1Q 2026 financial results including that total sales were 9% lower than the prior year. Defendants again blamed "project timing," but also disclosed that "softer short-cycle municipal customer ordering" contributed to the disappointing financial results. Defendants also revealed that the "variability" in short-cycle demand seen in 1Q 2026 "has always existed, inclusive of [the] 2023 to 2025 time frame" but claimed it was "less visible in the revenue outcomes because of the backlog condition combined with projects in flight." As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Plaintiff Steamfitters Local 449 Retirement Security Fund purchased Badger Meter common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Defendant Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and sells water measurement and management products. Historically, the Company's business centered on traditional water meters used by municipal and regional utilities to measure water consumption for billing and system management purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Bleichmar, Esq. 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Ross Shikowitz, Esq. 75 Virginia Road White Plains, New York 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: nkulesa@bfalaw.com rshikowitz@bfalaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration Order in Overdraft Fees Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PERFORMANCE JET SKIS, LLC; WORLDWIDEWEBBSOLUTIONS, LLC; A&F LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-2438 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting BANA's motion to compel arbitration and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel judicial reference. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are three California businesses and each have business accounts with Defendant-Appellee BANA. They filed a class action challenging BANA's practice of charging various overdraft fees. Each Plaintiff entered into BANA’'s standard Deposit Agreement, which includes a "How Claims on Business Accounts will be Resolved" section. That provision sets out three potential methods for resolving disputes, depending on the circumstances: arbitration, a bench trial, or judicial reference. Judicial reference is a California procedure in which a court-appointed referee hears and decides the case, subject to continued oversight by the court. The appeal centers on which dispute resolution procedure applies under the Deposit Agreement. After BANA removed the case to federal court, it moved to compel arbitration, while the Plaintiffs moved to compel judicial reference. The district court granted BANA's motion and denied the Plaintiffs' request, finding the contract language unambiguous. It rejected the Plaintiffs' interpretation that they could compel judicial reference after BANA elected arbitration, and held that the agreement allows either party to compel arbitration as the governing dispute resolution method. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in concluding that the contract was unambiguous and in adopting BANA's interpretation that judicial reference is available only if arbitration is not invoked. Under California law, a contract is considered ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations. The parties present competing interpretations of the Dispute Resolution Provisions. The Plaintiffs argue that judicial reference operates as an exception to both arbitration and bench trial options, and contend that at minimum the contract is ambiguous and should be construed against BANA as the drafter. BANA, by contrast, argues the agreement is unambiguous. It maintains that either party has a contractual right to compel arbitration, and that judicial reference is available only if neither party exercises that right. The Ninth Circuit holds that the Dispute Resolution Provisions are unambiguous and that BANA's interpretation is the most natural reading of the contract. It explains that the structure and wording of the provision create a clear separation between the right to compel arbitration and the other dispute resolution options. The clause's language frames arbitration as a "right" held by either party, distinct from the other procedural pathways. The Ninth Circuit further notes that judicial reference is discretionary rather than mandatory, which supports the conclusion that it does not override the arbitration right. Accordingly, arbitration controls when invoked, and the provision is not reasonably susceptible to the Plaintiffs' alternative interpretation. For these reasons, the district court's order granting BANA's motion to compel arbitration and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel judicial reference is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://sl1nk.com/eyvd3sn BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Simmons Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KENTRON SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING CO. and BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02622-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., June 2, 2026) arises from the data security incident that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendant. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant as a condition of employment. However, on or about May 21, 2026, Defendant posted a notice to its website and sent notice to victims that unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to their systems in April 2025. The cybercriminals had access to the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class Members from April 23, 2025, through April 21, 2026. The information accessed included at least names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification, passport numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, health information, and/or insurance information, and other highly sensitive data. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring, and loss of rights. They are incurring and will continue to incur such damages in addition to any fraudulent use of their Private Information, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (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, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Defendant Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. is a family-run company that has grown to be one of the largest heavy lift and heavy transport organizations in North America with more than 70 locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - 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 BARNHART CRANE: Unable to Protect Private Info, Watkins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WATKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING CO., and BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02602-BCL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., May 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to adequately protect its clients' and employees' information, and for failing to adequately notify them about the breach. The complaint relates that in collecting and maintaining its clients' and employees' Private Information, Barnhart agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with state law and federal law. On April 3, 2025, Defendants lost control over their computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information1 ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, stored thereon in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff began experiencing a significant increase in spam, scam, and phishing calls and texts, suggesting that his Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure of his Private Information -- which violates his rights to privacy, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks compensatory damages for breach of implied contract, which includes the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs. Plaintiff Michael Watkins is a former employee of Defendants. Defendants Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. and Barnhart Crane and Rigging, LLC operates crane rental, rigging services, outage planning, specialized solutions for component replacement, industrial storage and national project cargo logistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com BEI FRAMING: Kempf Class Suit Seeks Court-Facilitated Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER KEMPF, v. BEI FRAMING LLC and CLAYTON NICHOLSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-00527-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for Court-facilitated notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff seeks authorization to send notice to all current and former employees of BEI Framing LLC and/or Clayton Nicholson who performed framing, panel design, construction, or related services at any time from May 2, 2022 through the date of the Court's order, and who were not paid all applicable minimum wages and/or overtime wages for hours worked. The Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the proposed notice and consent form, authorize dissemination by U.S. Mail, email, and text message, set a 90-day opt-in period, permit one reminder notice, and order the Defendants to produce contact information. BEI offers customized and specific high-quality end products for commercial and residential building projects. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MOKZx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com BENTON COUNTY, AK: Summary Judgment in "Farella" Vacated -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Abigail Farella, All Others Similarly Situated; Logan W. Murphy, All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Benton County District Court, Div. 4, Defendant. District Judge A. J. Anglin, Defendant-Appellant. Gregg E. Parrish; Jay Saxton, Chief Benton County Public Defender Defendants, Case No. 24-2914(8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying Benton County District Judge A.J. Anglin's motion for summary judgment. It remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. Abigail Farella and Logan Murphy, serving as representatives for a certified class of pretrial detainees, allege that Benton County District Judge A.J. Anglin's bail hearing practices violated their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection of the law. In May 2022, Bentonville Police arrested Farella, who appeared two days later before state district court judge, Judge Anglin, in Benton County, Arkansas. Judge Anglin set her bail at $10,000 and scheduled arraignment; she was unrepresented at that hearing. The court later found Farella indigent and appointed a public defender for future proceedings. She remained in jail for over five weeks until another judge vacated her bail. In July 2023, she ultimately pled guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge and was sentenced to time served. Murphy was arrested by Bentonville police in June 2022 and appeared before Judge Anglin the next morning. The Judge set his bail at $40,000 and scheduled arraignment, and Murphy was unrepresented at that hearing. The court then found him indigent and appointed a public defender for later proceedings. In June 2023, Murphy pled guilty to felony fleeing and was sentenced to time served (113 days) plus 60 months' probation. Judge Anglin conducted Rule 8.1 hearings pursuant to authority granted under Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 18. After those hearings, Farella and Murphy filed a proposed class action against Judge Anglin and the Benton County District Court, Division 4. They later amended their complaint, dismissing the judicial district as a defendant and adding Gregg Parrish, Executive Director of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, and Jay Saxton, Chief Benton County Public Defender, as defendants. The complaint defines the class as "those indigent individuals who will appear before Judge Anglin for a bail hearing, and have been or will be denied the right to counsel at the bail hearing, in violation of the federal Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." The complaint alleges that the named Plaintiffs were denied counsel at their initial bail hearings before Judge Anglin, violating their rights under the Sixth Amendment (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment), as well as their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring appointment of counsel for indigent defendants at bail hearings. Judge Anglin and the public defender defendants each moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but the district court denied both motions. The court later granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs and Judge Anglin both moved for summary judgment. The public defender defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' motion, taking no position on the request for declaratory relief but opposing the request for a permanent injunction. The district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and denied Judge Anglin's motion, holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached at Rule 8.1 hearings and that bail determinations made at those hearings were a critical stage. It concluded that the failure to provide counsel at that stage violated the Sixth Amendment. Because the due process and equal protection claims mirrored the Sixth Amendment claim, the court did not separately analyze them. It granted declaratory relief on the Sixth Amendment claim and entered a permanent injunction requiring that indigent defendants be provided counsel at bail-setting hearings before Judge Anglin. Judge Anglin appealed. He contended that the Plaintiffs lack standing because they failed to show an injury that can be redressed by prospective relief. The Eighth Circuit explained that to establish standing for prospective relief, plaintiffs must either show they are likely to suffer future injury that will be remedied by the relief sought, or that they are experiencing "continuing, present adverse effects from past exposure to illegal conduct." The Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they face a real and immediate threat that they would again suffer similar injury in the future. The prospect of future injury requires that they will again be arrested and charged with violating the criminal law and be brought before Judge Anglin for a bail-setting hearing without the appointment of counsel. This future chain of events is too speculative to establish standing. Moreover, contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, the Supreme Court's decision in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) is not analogous. In McLaughlin, plaintiffs were in custody at the time of filing and faced ongoing constitutional harm that could be remedied through prospective relief, so standing was satisfied. Here, by contrast, Judge Anglin had already conducted the Rule 8.1 hearings and set bail before appointing counsel at the time the complaint was filed. Because the Plaintiffs sought only prospective relief and not damages, their alleged injury—lack of counsel at past hearings—was not redressable. Ordering counsel for future hearings would not remedy any past harm, so the Plaintiffs lacked standing. As Farella and Murphy have not alleged a redressable injury, they have failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements of standing. Thus, it is unnecessary for the Eighth Circuit to address mootness or the merits of the case. For these reasons, the district court's judgment is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss it. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/pwqonb0. Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice Amicus Curiae. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arkansas; Deason Criminal Justice Reform Center; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Legal Aid and Defender Association; National Association for Public Defense; New York University School of Law Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s). BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL: Curran Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Curran, Claude Comegna, Meridith Jones, and Antonio Inoa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLACKROCK TCP CAPITAL CORP.; ROBERT G. DIPAOLO; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2681CV01004 was removed from t the Superior Court of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-12518. The Plaintiffs are individuals who allegedly worked for Newpro until its closure in October 2025. The Plaintiffs claim that Newpro failed to pay their earned but unpaid wages, either on the date of their respective terminations or thereafter. The Plaintiffs further allege that TCPC and Mr. DiPaolo were involved in determining Newpro policies, and that Mr. DiPaolo was personally involved in the decision to liquidate Newpro as part of Renovo's bankruptcy process. The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages equating to all wages to which Plaintiffs are allegedly entitled, treble damages, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John S. Gearan, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One International Place, Suite 2000 Boston, MA, 02110 Phone: (617) 310-5225 Fax: (617) 310-6001 Email: gearanj@gtlaw.com - and - Peter Friedman, Esq. Craig McAllister, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY, 10019 Phone: (212) 326-2000 Fax: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com cmcallister@omm.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolnsberg. et al., v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01515 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered an order granting in part and denying in part Motion to Amend/CorrectScheduling Order : -- Opposition to motion for class certification is due July 15, 2026, and the reply is due by August 5, 2026. -- Damages are due on October 31, 2026. -- Fact discovery will close by December 1,2026. -- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosure is due December 15, 2026, and depositions will be taken by January 15, 2027; defendants' expert disclosure is due February 1, 2027, and depositions will be taken by March 1, 2027. -- Dispositive motions are due by April 1, 2027. Motions to preclude due by April 1, 2027, and Joint Trial Memorandum due by April 1 or 30 days after the ruling on the dispositive motion. SO ORDERED by Judge Janet C. Hall on 6/3/2026. (lb) The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Boehringer manufactures pharmaceutical products.[CC] BREAKFAST CAPITAL: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. BREAKFAST CAPITAL, LLC; AVENTURA OPH LLC D/B/A THE ORIGINAL PANCAKE HOUSE; and G.P. AVENTURA COMMONS LLC D/B/A MORELIA AVENTURA COMMONS A/K/A MORELIA ICE CREAM PALETAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-23752 (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property, breakfast restaurant, and ice cream shop businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property and Defendants' businesses that have accordingly posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have each individually and together discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the properties and the businesses thereon, says the suit. Breakfast Capital, LLC owns and operates a commercial property located in Aventura, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com BRIAN ENGLISH: Must Release Vega from Custody by June 15 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES GARCIA VEGA, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00677-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Brisco entered an order that: (1) Conditionally grants the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directs the Respondents to release Andres Garcia Vega on or before June 15, 2026, unless he is provided with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226 and corresponding regulations; (2) Directs the clerk to email forthwith a copy of this order to the Warden of the Miami Correctional Facility at the Indiana Department of Correction to secure compliance with this order; and (3) Directs the Respondents to file proof of compliance with this order by June 17, 2026. Although Mr. Garcia Vega presses for outright release, the court views the opportunity for an individualized bond hearing as the correct remedy. Without a prior denial of bond on the merits that is alleged to be erroneous, the court leaves the parties to follow the usual process under section 1226. Mr. Garcia Vega is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. In 2018, he was convicted of a drug offense in the Northern District of Illinois, and was subsequently removed to Mexico. The Seventh Circuit later reversed his conviction for insufficient evidence, and a judgment of acquittal was entered on remand. He later re-entered the country without inspection and, in 2023, successfully moved to reopen and terminate his removal proceedings. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkY5bW at no extra charge.[CC] CANON BUSINESS: Bustamante Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canon Business Process Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffery Bustamante, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Canon Business Process Services, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE067155 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Canon Business Process Services -- https://cbps.canon.com/ -- helps clients enable business agility, digital transformation and lead an increasingly evolving workforce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Iseman Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Iseman, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and PRIORITY EXPRESS COURIER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2026CV31407 was removed from the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02469. The Complaint asserts a putative class action under C.R.C.P. 23 and alleges claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standard ("COMPS") Order. Plaintiff alleges Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other grocery delivery drivers as independent contractors; deducted vehicle-insurance, uniform, and drug-test costs; adjusted time-clock entries; failed to pay alleged standby time; and retaliated against Plaintiff by constructively discharging him after he questioned Defendants' standby-pay practices. Defendants deny Plaintiff's allegations and remove this case without admitting liability, damages, class certification, or the propriety of any relief sought.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria E. Guzman, Esq. Alexander Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Email: Victoria@TowardsJustice.org Alex@TowardsJustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Andrew J. Butcher, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-255-7200 Email: abutcher@scopelitis.com - and - Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 626-795-4700 Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com CAPUCINNE LTD: Faces Davis Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capucinne Ltd, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06385 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.capucinne.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 8, 2026, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website while searching for fine jewelry items. Interested in the products offered on the website, Plaintiff Davis decided to explore the available options with the intent to make a purchase. During her visit, she became interested in the Poppy 1.2ct Kite Lab Diamond 2 Ring Set - Stacking Ring and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, she encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the order, says the suit. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Davis and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Davis 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. Capucinne Ltd, Inc. operates the website that offers fine jewelry, including rings, bridal jewelry, necklaces, earrings, bracelets, gemstones, diamonds, and custom jewelry designs.[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 CARUSO MANAGEMENT: Amador Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caruso Management Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Audrey Amador, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Caruso Management Company, LLC, Caruso Affiliated Holdings, LLC, Caruso Property Management, Inc., Caruso Property Management, LLC, Case No. 26STCV17331 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Caruso Management Company, Ltd. -- https://caruso.com/ -- is a construction services company located in Calabasas, California, available for a variety of services and project types.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com CASPARI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caspari, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06239 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.casparionline.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 19, 2026, Plaintiff Booker searched online for paper dinnerware and tabletop items for an upcoming picnic. While searching online, he discovered Defendant's website and decided to explore the available offerings. However, while navigating the website using a screen reader, Booker encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Booker 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. Caspari, Inc. operates the website that offers tabletop and entertaining products, paper napkins, plates and dinnerware, stationery, gift wrap, candles, and home décor.[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 CASUAL MALE STORE: Thompson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casual Male Store, LLC et al. The case is styled as Monica Thompson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casual Male Store, LLC, Destination XL Group, Inc., Case No. 26CUB02115 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Casual Male XL -- https://www.dxl.com/ -- is a leading specialty retailer providing men's apparel in sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com CCL LABEL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Ramirez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCL LABEL, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12475 (D. Mass., June 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly include Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title Technician from approximately December 2009 to March 2025. CCL Label, Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty labels, premium packaging, and decorative solutions for consumer goods with principal place of business in Framingham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 180 Elm Street, Suite I, Box 183 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 48076 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com CE SOLUTIONS: Breach of Contract in "Richardson" Revived -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Marques Richardson et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CE Solutions Group, LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants, Marvelous Mark Transportation Co., Inc. et al, Defendants, Index No. 653369/21, Appeal No. 6691, Case No. 2025-03018 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed, with costs, the order of Judge Shlomo S. Hagler of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 24, 2025, which granted the Plaintiffs' motion to renew and denied the motion of Defendants CE Solutions Group, LLC and Eduard Slinin to dismiss the class action complaint's cause of action for breach of contract. The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion. In their putative class action, the Plaintiffs, who worked as construction and traffic control flaggers, claimed they were third-party beneficiaries of contracts between CE Solutions Group and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. They alleged that the Defendants breached those agreements by failing to pay prevailing wages, overtime, and supplemental benefits required under Administrative Code of the City of New York Section 19-142 for work performed at Con Edison worksites. By order dated October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the breach of contract claim, finding that the agreements expressly disclaimed third-party beneficiary status for any party not specifically identified, and that the Plaintiffs, as unnamed third-party beneficiaries, therefore could not recover for breach of contract. However, after the Supreme Court issued its October 11, 2024 order, the Appellate Division decided Santana v. San Mateo Construction Corp. (234 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2025]), holding that disclaimers of third-party beneficiary rights in flagging contracts are void as against public policy. That decision represented a change in the law directly relevant to the CE Defendants' motion to dismiss and would have likely altered the outcome had it been decided earlier. The Appellate Division also noted that denying renewal would have effectively deprived the Plaintiffs of their claimed statutory right to prevailing wages under Administrative Code Section 19-142, contrary to public policy. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at https://l1nq.com/0dzw220. Phillips Nizer LLP, New York (Evan J. Spelfogel -- espelfogel@phillipsnizer.com -- of counsel) for appellants. Pelton Graham LLC, New York (Taylor B. Graham -- graham@peltongraham.com -- of counsel), for respondents. CETERA FINANCIAL: Sager Sues Over Exploitative Sweep Programs ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Sager, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CETERA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., and CETERA INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03372-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2026), is brought arising from Defendants' exploitative implementation of their FDIC-Insured Bank Deposit Sweep Programs (collectively, the "Programs"), including the FlexInsured Account Program, resulting in the breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated investors and their contractual obligations to act in their clients' best interests. A cash sweep account is a type of bank or brokerage account that is linked to an investment account and automatically transfers funds when the balance is above or below a preset minimum. When acting as their customers' agents, Defendants automatically "swept" uninvested cash balances in their customer accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts at participating program banks ("Program Banks") selected by Defendants. Because the Program Banks paid far below-market rates of interest, Plaintiff and Class members lost significant interest they would have otherwise earned had Defendants swept their cash into accounts or vehicles paying reasonable market rates, or raised the rates paid to customers through the Programs as federal interest rates began to rise in 2022. During the rising interest rate environment from March 2022 through the present, the profits that the Defendants have earned on their customers' cash have grown exponentially. Rising interest rates should have presented an opportunity for Defendants' customers to earn more on their uninvested cash. However, Defendants continue to exploit this opportunity for their own benefit, extracting the high rates of interest for themselves and thwarting their customers from receiving the reasonable returns they were legally entitled to. Defendants disguise the returns they keep as "fees" for administering the Programs. However, in reality, they receive kickbacks from the Program Banks on the profits they are able to obtain by investing or loaning out customers' cash at significantly higher rates of interest. By improperly keeping the interest rates paid on the cash sweep accounts low and sharing the interest profit with the Program Banks, Defendants align themselves with the banks to maximize their own profits, rather than the customers to which they owe contractual and fiduciary duties. The Defendants failed to disclose the magnitude of the rate differential, the specific rates paid by the Program Banks, the specific amounts Defendants retained as compensation, or the true extent to which the Programs enriched Defendants at their customers' expense. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by placing their customers' cash in low interest-bearing accounts and pocketing the unpaid interest as profit. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, violation of applicable state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment, to recover damages arising out of Defendants' violations of the law, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff maintained a brokerage account with Defendants. Cetera Financial had ultimate authority over, and direct financial benefit from, the Programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Dang Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA L. DANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a SPECTRUM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00847 (D. Conn., May 29, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members whose PII was unauthorizedly accessed and taken on or about April 1, 2026 by "ShinyHunters," a well known cybercriminal group that stole more than 42 million records from Defendant that contain Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII through a voice phishing (vishing) attack that compromised employee's Microsoft Entra account. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Member's PII was accessed by hackers, and, upon information and belief, posted on the dark web and exposed to an untold number of additional unauthorized individuals. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive relief. Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chloe M. Mangan, Esq. DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP 1010 Washington Blvd., Suite 800 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 358-0800 x 3304 E-mail: cmangan@dmoc.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd St., Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Ruschman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE RUSCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00868 (D. Conn., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to implement proper and reasonable measures to safeguard sensitive private information in its custody, and for failing to take the available and necessary steps to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of that information. The complaint relates that Charter has directly and indirectly collected highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") such as customer proprietary network information (CPNI), customer names, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers, phone type, billing information, and plan information (collectively "Sensitive Private Information") from tens of millions of customers. On April 1, 2026, a group of cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's computer systems, accessed, and exfiltrated file repositories that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information. Plaintiff has suffered injury, including misuse of the information stolen in the Data Breach, and face an imminent and substantial risk of further injury including identity theft and fraud and related cybercrimes due to the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available under law, including compensatory and consequential damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring Defendant to implement reasonable data security measures and compliance programs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Carrie Ruschman is a customer of Charter, whose Sensitive Private Information was collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant. Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. is one of the largest telecommunications and media companies in the United Sates, providing broadband internet, cable television, mobile, and voice services to tens of millions of residential and business customers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael L. Laird, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Schism Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HARRISON SCHISM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00835 (D. Conn., May 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class that was impacted in a cyber incident. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and employees of Defendant, who entrusted their PII with Defendant as a condition of obtaining services. On May 23, 2026, Defendant experienced a data breach in which the notorious ransomware group "ShinyHunters" claimed responsibility, purporting to have stolen 40 million records from Defendant's IT Network. The records include Private Information belonging to customers and employees of Defendant. As a result, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time and/or money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms caused by the Data Breach. In addition, Plaintiff will continue to be at present, imminent, and continued increased risk of identity theft and fraud for his lifetime, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession. Plaintiff Harrison Schism is a victim of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. is an American telecommunications and media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CHARTER SENIOR: Pare Seeks to Recover Caregivers' Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALTAIR PARE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHARTER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06532 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) is a class action for Defendant's willful failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, as well as the Connecticut Wage Payment Law. The complaint alleges that the Defendant shortchanged its non-exempt employees and failed to pay overtime compensation through unlawful practices that do not pay all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as Caregiver from approximately March 11, 2024 to the present. Charter Senior Living, LLC operates at least 65 skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities6 throughout the continental United States providing healthcare-related services including assisted living, nursing care, memory care, personal care, rehabilitation, short term care, and long term care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com -and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com CHINA INT'L: Sued Over Dry Shipping Container Price‑Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- C.A. Spalding Company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTAINERS (GROUP) CO., LTD.; CIMC USA, INC.; CIMC INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT, LLC; SHANGHAI UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS EQUIPMENT CO., LTD. a/k/a "DONG FANG INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERS"; FLORENS ASSET MANAGEMENT (USA), LIMITED; FLORENS CONTAINER, INC.; CXIC GROUP CONTAINERS CO. LTD.; SINGAMAS CONTAINER HOLDINGS LTD.; BOLIANG MAI; TIANHUA HUANG a/k/a "T.H. HUANG"; YONGBO WAN; QIANMIN LI; YUQIANG ZHANG a/k/a "JAMES ZHANG"; SIONG SENG TEO a/k/a "S.S. TEO"; and VICK NAM HING MA a/k/a "VICK MA," Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-05259 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the antitrust and consumer protection statutes of multiple states, and for unjust enrichment. This lawsuit concerns an agreement among horizontal competitors to restrict output and fix prices for standard dry shipping containers sold to customers in the United States and worldwide. On January 22, 2026, a federal grand jury in the District returned a Superseding Indictment charging certain Defendants with a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The Indictment alleges a conspiracy to "restrict the output of and fix the prices of dry shipping containers sold to customers worldwide, including in the Northern District of California. The Indictment alleges that this conduct occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, during which delays affected shipping worldwide. While American consumers suffered shortages of goods ranging from electronics to medical supplies, and inflation surged -- the dry container manufacturers reported increased profitability. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the Class are indirect payers who did not buy standard dry shipping containers directly from Defendants, but who nonetheless bore the overcharges caused by Defendants' alleged conspiracy. The Plaintiff and the Class were injured because they paid more than they would have paid absent Defendants' unlawful restraint of trade. The Defendants' alleged conspiracy was self-concealing and was affirmatively concealed, the complaint asserts. The Indictment alleges that the conspirators preferred to meet in person "to avoid the suspicion of industry monopoly," deleted incriminating emails, removed references to their "alliance" and "market discipline" from board and investor presentations because they were "sensitive under anti-trust law," and kept the agreement confidential "at a very high level." Plaintiff and the Class did not discover, and could not through reasonable diligence have discovered, the alleged conspiracy until the existence of the criminal charges became public, says the suit. Plaintiff C.A. Spalding Company regularly imported component parts and goods from overseas suppliers, including from the People's Republic of China, in standard dry shipping containers of the type manufactured by Defendants and their co-conspirators. Defendant are the world's dominant manufacturers of standard dry shipping containers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Kyle Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com E-mail: kquackenbush@girardsharp.com - and - Roberta Liebenberg, Esq. Jeffrey Gittleman, Esq. Sandra L. Duggan, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK R.P.C. One South Broad St., 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com E-mail: jgittleman@finekaplan.com E-mail: sduggan@finekaplan.com CLARITY COSMETICS: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clarity Cosmetics Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6372 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://helloseen.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 10, 2026, Plaintiff Davis searched online for shampoo for her current hair condition. During her online research, she came across Defendant's website and decided to learn more about this brand. During her navigation, she became interested in the SEEN Shampoo, Fragrance Free, and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, Davis encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Davis and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff 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. Clarity Cosmetics Inc. operates the website that offers haircare and skincare products, including shampoos, conditioners, serums, scalp treatments, pimple patches, and body wash.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law COBB MECHANICAL: Carr Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Everett Carr, individually and for others similarly situated v. COBB MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02471 (D. Colo., June 3, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and their implementing regulations (COMPS Orders). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek and occasionally 12 hours a workday. But the Defendant does not pay them wages for all hours worked, including overtime wages at the required rates for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek and/or 12 a workday. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees "per diems" that it does not reasonably calculate to reimburse expenses incurred, but rather, the Defendant pays based on days actually worked, yet excludes from these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "per diem pay scheme"). Additionally, the Defendant automatically rounds the Plaintiff's and the other Hourly Employees recorded hours worked to reflect only their prescheduled shifts, despite these employees regularly working beyond their prescheduled shifts (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). The Defendant's per diem pay scheme and rounding policy violate the FLSA, CWCA, and CMWA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all hours worked, including at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay, based on all remuneration, for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumber from March 2024 until September 2025. The Defendant is a construction company that touts itself as "the industry's most comprehensive single source for plumbing and mechanical systems having completed more than 700 projects with a total construction value in excess of one billion dollars."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HEALTH: Becker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Memorial Health System. The case is styled as Josie Becker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Community Memorial Health System, Case No. 2026CUOE067175 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Community Memorial Healthcare -- https://www.mycmh.org/ -- is a nonprofit, independent health system serving the needs of Ventura County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Paul Katofsky, Esq. ALEX P. KATOFSKY, APC 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-340-3600 Email: alex@apkatlaw.com CVS PHARMACY: Wittman Balks at Mislabeled Capsules' Dosage Amount ----------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN WITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02827 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers in the United States, alleging violations of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets CVS Calcium 1200 mg + D3 and CVS Glucosamine HCI 1500 mg Chondroitin Sulfate 1200 mg (collectively, the "Products"). According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively labels the products by misrepresenting the dosage amount of each softgel or capsule. Specifically, the products' front label prominently advertises a certain dosage amount, for example, "Calcium 1200 mg." The front label also advertises the number of softgels or capsules in the products, for example "120 softgels." Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, are therefore led to believe that each softgel contains the advertised dosage amount: 1,200 mg of calcium in each softgel. The truth, however, is that each softgel does not contain the advertised dosage amount. Instead, consumers must ingest two softgels to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, consumers grossly overpay for the products, receiving only half or a third of the advertised value while paying the full purchase price, says the suit. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com DANIEL WELLINGTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vaughn Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Daniel Wellington Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06375 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://us.danielwellington.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Vaughn and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 28, 2026, while browsing online for ring as a gift, Plaintiff Vaughn discovered Defendant's website, which appeared among the top search results. After reviewing positive customer feedback, he decided to visit the website to explore available products and make a purchase. During his visit, he discovered the Emalie Ring Satin White Rose Gold and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, Plaintiff Vaughn encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase independently. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Vaughn and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of 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 Vaughn 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. Daniel Wellington Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of watches, rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, watch straps, coordinated jewelry collections, gift sets, and related fashion accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law DANSKO LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, McLean Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY McLEAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANSKO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04468 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.dansko.com in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals like Plaintiff. On January 22, 2026, February 14, 2026, and April 9, 2026, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website using screen-reader technology to research and purchase the Women's Rowan Red Leather Mary Jane Sandal and Women's XP 2.0 Rose Patent Clog. She attempted to review product descriptions, sizing information, support features, and available colorways before completing a purchase. Despite multiple attempts across these three dates, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete her objectives due to pervasive access barriers. The accessibility barriers were systemic and not limited to isolated pages. The Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool reports documented failures across product images, size and color selectors, filter controls, navigation menus, and interactive elements, confirming that Defendant's website is not coded in a manner compatible with screen-reader technology and denies blind users equal access to the goods and services offered, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.dansko.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. DANSKO, LLC operates the website where consumers can browse footwear, review product-specific information, and purchase items directly online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com DAS LABS LLC: Ruchman Sues Over Falsely Labeled Products -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ruchman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. DAS LABS LLC dba BUCKED UP, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-05871 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2026), is brought against the Defendant alleging that its Bucked Up Lightly Carbonated Protein Drinks, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because the Products contain fewer grams of protein than is claimed on the Products' labels, and upon information. The Products are ultra-filtered whey isolate protein drinks, manufactured in rainbow candy, banana pineapple, peach mango, orange cream, and berry blast flavors. The Products are advertised as a protein supplement good for consumption after a workout. The Products all state on the front label that they contain 25 grams of protein per drink and repeat the same claim regarding protein content in the Nutrition Facts panel. Consumers including Plaintiff especially rely on label claims made by food product manufacturers such as Defendant, as they cannot confirm or disprove those claims simply by viewing or even consuming the Products. Further, federal law and corresponding state law and regulations both reflect and create reasonable consumer expectations concerning the contents of foods and beverages. That is, consumers have been conditioned to rely on the accuracy of the claims concerning the amount of protein in a food product, and plan their consumption around those claims. The Plaintiff reviewed the front label and Nutrition Facts panel on the Products prior to his purchase, and reviewed the statements regarding protein being made there. Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products' labels reasonably understood the Products to contain 25 grams of protein per drink. These representations were false. Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on these label statements such that they would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading. In the alternative, because of its deceptive and false labeling statements, Defendant was enabled to charge a premium for the Products relative to key competitors' products, or relative to the average price charged in the marketplace. The Plaintiff suffered economic injury by Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct as stated herein, and there is a causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct and Plaintiff's injuries, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the rainbow candy flavor of the Products on January 8, 2026 from a Vitamin Shoppe store in Thousand Oaks, California. DAS Labs LLC dba Bucked Up is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in American Fork, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: 858.414.7465 Fax: 858.300.5137 Email: legal@cweller.com DELTA DENTAL: Cudahy Dental Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cudahy Dental Associates, S.C., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., Case No. 26cv4125 was removed from the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00995. The Plaintiff Cudahy Dental Associates, S.C.--a dental service provider (collectively with other dental service providers, "Providers") falsely alleges that DDWI colluded with DDPA, DeltaUSA, and the other 38 DDMCs to suppress the reimbursements that it receives for treating Delta Dental insureds in violation of Wisconsin antitrust law. Although Plaintiff claims that the challenged conduct applied uniformly throughout the United States, it only named DDWI as a Defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison W. Reimann, Esq. Christie B. Carrino, Esq. Nicholas J. Bezier, Esq. Jenna L. Riddle, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. 833 East Michigan Street, Suite 1800 Milwaukee, WI 53202-5615 Phone: 414-273-3500 Fax: 414-273-5198 Email: areimann@gklaw.com ccarrino@gklaw.com nbezier@gklaw.com jriddle@gklaw.com DELTA FACILITIES: Graham Sues to Recover Unpaid Back Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tiosha Graham, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. DELTA FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, DEBRA HARRISON, Individually, and JONATHAN HARRISON, Individually, Case No. 2:26-cv-01837 (M.D. Fla., June 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendants arising from Defendants' recurrent and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid back wages owed to the Plaintiff. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated cleaning technicians but failed to pay them the appropriate overtime pay in overtime weeks as required by the FLSA. The Defendants' practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated cleaning technicians overtime premiums for all their hours worked over 40 each workweek violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA. When Plaintiff complained about this unlawful practice to Defendants, they retaliated against her by cancelling her regular schedule, reducing her hours, and telling her to look for other employment, despite work (including her prior regularly scheduled work) being available, violating the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a cleaning technician on December 29, 2025. DELTA was, and continues to be, a Florida Profit Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954-327-5369 Fax: 954-327-3016 Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com DELUXE AUTO CARRIERS: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deluxe Auto Carriers, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Raymond Randy Sr Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deluxe Auto Carriers, Inc.; Excel Auto Transport, Inc.; Proficient Auto Transport, Inc.; Sierra Mountain Express, Inc.; Sierra Mountain Group, Inc.; Sierra Mountain Logistics, Inc.; WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc.; Case No. 2026CUOE067242 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Deluxe Auto Carriers, Inc. provides trucking and transfer services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618-4375 Phone: 949-379-6250 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com DENTAL SERVICE: Stanley Levenson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stanley Levenson, DMD, and South Shore Dentistry, LLC, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. DENTAL SERVICE OF MASSACHUSETTS INC. d/b/a Delta Dental of Massachusetts, Case No. 2684CV01279 was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-12519. The Plaintiffs Stanley Levenson and South Shore Dentistry, LLC--two dental service providers ("Providers")--falsely allege that DDMA colluded with DDPA, DeltaUSA, and the other 38 DDMCs to suppress the reimbursements that Providers receive for treating Delta Dental insureds in violation of Massachusetts antitrust and unfair competition law. Although Plaintiffs claim that the challenged conduct applied uniformly throughout the United States, they only named DDMA as a Defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alaina N. Devine, Esq. CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL, P.C. 20 City Square, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02129 Phone: (617) 241-3037 Email: adevine@campbell-trial-lawyers.com - and - Britt M. Miller, Esq. Daniel K. Storino, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 701-8663 Fax: (312) 706-8763 Email: bmiller@mayerbrown.com dstorino@mayerbrown.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Cantu Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DentaQuest Group, Inc. The case is styled as Rosario Marina Cantu, on behalf of her minor child, M.C., and all others similarly situated v. DentaQuest Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12495 (D. Mass., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. DentaQuest -- https://www.dentaquest.com/ -- part of Sun Life U.S., is a purpose-driven health care company dedicated to improving the oral health of all.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: May Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DentaQuest Group, Inc. The case is styled as Ileana May, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DentaQuest Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12458-AK (D. Mass., June 1, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DentaQuest -- https://www.dentaquest.com/ -- part of Sun Life U.S., is a purpose-driven health care company dedicated to improving the oral health of all.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Straud Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DentaQuest Group, Inc. The case is styled as Penny Straud, on behalf of her minor child K.S., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DentaQuest Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12479 (D. Mass., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DentaQuest -- https://www.dentaquest.com/ -- part of Sun Life U.S., is a purpose-driven health care company dedicated to improving the oral health of all.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com DERMFX INC: Shipstad Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure -------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN SHIPSTAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMFX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-1306 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Through the DermFx website, https://www.dermfx.com patients can research cosmetic and dermatological treatments, book appointments, request consultations, purchase products, and register for a DermFx membership account to track their appointments and earn and redeem points. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other visitors to the website, their private personal and health information was not being kept private. Instead, DermFx collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiff and other patients, including the fact that they had made medical appointments and/or requested consultations for specific medical and cosmetic treatments, the DermFx locations their appointments were scheduled at, and that they had registered for DermFx membership accounts to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools, asserts the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of sensitive health information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the sensitive health information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their sensitive health information. DermFx, Inc. is a medical provider offering a range of cosmetic and dermatological treatments at its six California locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com DICK'S SPORTING: Consolidated Derivative Suits Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 2, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2026, that on June 2, 2026, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered an order staying a consolidated suit and its derivative litigation pending the resolution of the former. On February 16, 2024, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund filed a putative shareholder class action complaint against the company and certain of its executive officers and directors in said court. On July 30, 2024, the Court appointed the State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, and Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund as lead plaintiffs in the action, now captioned "In re Dick s Sporting Goods, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-NR-KT. On October 15, 2024, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the same defendants alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misrepresentations and omissions about the company s business and financial condition. The allegations include statements regarding its inventory, margins, business prospects, and inventory shrinkage related to retail theft. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company s common stock between August 23, 2022 and August 21, 2023, and seeks relief including damages and costs, including attorneys fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 16, 2024. In addition, on February 13, 2025 and May 2, 2025, two stockholder derivative actions were filed against certain of the company's executive officers and directors, and against the Company as nominal defendant, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The complaints allege violations of Section 14(a) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, including based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions that are similar to the allegations in the Securities Litigation. The complaints seek relief on behalf of the Company including damages, restitution, and governance reforms, and an award of costs, including attorneys fees. On May 16, 2025, the court consolidated the actions, now captioned "In re Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. Derivative Litigation," Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-NR-KT. DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a U.S.-based sporting goods retailer offering a wide range of athletic apparel, footwear, equipment and accessories through its brick-and-mortar stores and e-commerce platforms. The company serves athletes and outdoor enthusiasts nationwide under the DICK'S Sporting Goods and related banners. DOCUSIGN INC: Weston Securities Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ DocuSign, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2026, that it is pursuing the voluntary dismissal of opt-out cases following the dismissal of a putative securities class action filed on February 8, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," naming DocuSign and certain of the company's then-current and former officers as defendants. The complaint, as amended on July 8, 2022, April 14, 2025, and May 22, 2025, alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The allegations were based on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. On January 26, 2026, the court granted the company's renewed motion to dismiss the Weston securities class action in its entirety. The court entered judgment in favor of the company and against the plaintiffs that same day. The plaintiffs did not appeal this result, and the matter is now closed. Additionally, eight putative shareholder derivative cases were previously filed containing allegations based on or similar to those in the Weston securities class action. The plaintiffs in each of these derivative cases have voluntarily dismissed them or are in the process of doing so. Separately, on June 3, 2025, two opt-out actions, captioned "Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al." and "Advanced Series Trust, et al. v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," were filed in the Northern District of California by plaintiffs who had opted out of the class certified in the Weston action. These opt-out cases allege substantially similar claims as in the securities class action. On July 18, 2025, the cases were stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the securities class action, and on May 6, 2026, the court lifted the stay in light of the dismissal of that action. DocuSign, Inc. is a provider of electronic signature and agreement management solutions, enabling organizations to prepare, sign, act on, and manage agreements digitally. The company serves businesses of all sizes across a wide range of industries worldwide.stakeholders. DOLLAR GENERAL: Sanchez Sues Over Toxic Fragrances at Facilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SANCHEZ, MICHELLE POLLOK, NICOLE WULF, AMY KOCH, and DIANE KOCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-at-02311 (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2026) is a class action seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in its facilities despite the discriminatory effect of these practices. Defendant DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION is a business that maintains retail facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce. Representative Plaintiffs assert that Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities. Indeed, by the time these unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons are aware of the pervasive scents/toxins, it is simply too late: the toxins are ingested, have landed upon the skin, have entered the lungs and, thus, entered these victims' bloodstreams and targeted various organs/systems. Representative Plaintiffs aver that the effects of these Synthetic fragranced consumer products adversely affect all human beings but, for those with recognized disabilities such as fragrance/chemical and/or multiple chemical sensitivities, autism, and so on, the fear, apprehension and emotional distress of coming into contact with fragrance can be intense, as can be the physiological manifestations predictably attendant to the exposure, says the suit. The Representative Plaintiffs bring this action, individually, and on behalf of the Class of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities. They seek injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Representative Plaintiffs are natural persons with a physical condition which renders them unable to patronize, visit and/or enjoy the full and equal access to Defendant's Facilities--so long as the facility continues to expose patrons to fragranced substances (including carcinogenic and/or other hazardous air pollutants, and particulate matter).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com E-mail: mtf@colevannote.com EAST WEST BANK: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Privacy Invasion ----------------------------------------------------------- Monica Dawkins, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. EAST WEST BANK, a California chartered commercial bank, Case No. 2:26-at-00949 (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2026), is brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.eastwestbank.com (the "Website"), which contained the Defendant's deployed interception technologies which violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. During her use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of her communications and reveal her personal and sensitive browsing activity, including communications reflecting financial distress and personal finance topics. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what she was browsing, the verbatim page titles, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish their commercial objectives, including identity resolution, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California, in Tulare County, when she visited the Website. EAST WEST BANK is a California-chartered commercial bank with its principal place of business in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com EMPOWER ADVISORY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Russell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02434 (D. Colo., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. On April 16, 2026, the ransom group "Dragon Force" exfiltrated 316 GB of sensitive data belonging to Defendant. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure, the complaint notes. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and failed notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and/or will suffer injuries including (1) financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; (2) the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; (3) lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and (4) theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Jason Russell is a citizen and resident of San Diego, California. He is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Empower Advisory Group, LLC is a financial services company that services over 20 million people nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866.252.0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com EMPOWER GROUP: Russell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Russell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPOWER GROUP PARTNERS INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03308 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant experienced on April 16, 2026 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and failed notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and/or will suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a financial services company that services over 20 million people nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, New York 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: maccarone@kolawyers.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com EPATH DIGITAL: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dominick Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPATH DIGITAL, L.P., Case No. 26STCV04341 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05880. On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding two new causes of action under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), adding a common-law intrusion upon seclusion claim. The FAC asserts three causes of action: violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17529.5 (the Commercial Email statute); violation of California Penal Code Section 638.51 (CIPA's trap-and-trace provisions); and (3) intrusion upon seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah de Diego, Esq. DE DIEGO LAW, LLC 61 Ave. De Diego, Ste. 2A San Juan, PR 00911 Phone: 310-980-8116 Email: sarah@dediego.law ESTEE LAUDER: $210MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE THE ESTEE LAUDER CO., INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. during the period from February 3, 2022 through February 3, 2025, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiffs Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Settlement Class; and The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. ("Estee Lauder" or the "Company"), Fabrizio Freda and Tracey T. Travis (the "Individual Defendants" and, together with Estee Lauder, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed full and complete settlement of the claims in the class action (the "Action") and related claims in the amount of $210,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Court on August 20, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. (ET) at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice, as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 6, 2026; (iii) for purposes of the Settlement only, finally certify the Settlement Class, finally certify Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and finally appoint the law firm of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (v) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy, and the more detailed long-form Notice and Claim Form, by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Estee Lauder Securities Settlement c/o Epiq P.O. Box 5983 Portland, OR 97228-5983 1 (877) 357-1477 info@EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP Michael P. Canty, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 5, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be entitled to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, except as otherwise ordered by the Court or allowed by Lead Counsel in its discretion, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that it is received no later than July 30, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice so that they are received no later than July 30, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: June 8, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK URL: www.EsteeLauderSecuritiesSettlement.com EUROFINS NSC: Boring Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY BORING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eurofins NSC US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03694 (E.D. Pa., May 29, 2026) challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Eurofins Health and Welfare Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the implementing regulations. The complaint notes that the Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants of all available avenues to avoid the surcharge. There is no indication in the benefit guides that surcharges will be reimbursed to those participants who satisfy the alternative standard. According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to disclose in all Plan materials (i) contact information for accessing the alternative standard, (ii) that participants have access to an alternative standard through which they may qualify for the full reward, or (iii) that they have the right to a physician-directed alternative. In doing so, Defendant withholds critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shifts Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Eurofins who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated, says the suit. Eurofins NSC US, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is part of a broader network of laboratory and testing companies that operate throughout the U.S., with benefits administration functions located in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: moconnett@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com EXXON MOBIL: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Strike Class Cert Sur-Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENDI YOSHIKAWA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, LIAM M. MALLON, and MELISSA BOND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order striking the Defendants sur-reply in support of opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification for violating the District's local rules and the Court's orders. Lead Plaintiffs request that the Court strike the Sur-Reply in its entirety. The Defendants' 58-page Sur-Reply violates Local Rule 7.2(c), this Court's opinion and Order denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of Lead Plaintiffs' expert D. Randall Wright, P.E., and the stipulated briefing schedule agreed to by the parties and so ordered by this Court. The Defendants' disregard for this Court's orders and their own commitments warrant striking, at the very least, the Improper Portions of their Sur-Reply for addressing issues other than the discrete price impact issues on which they bear the burden of proof. Exxon is an oil and gas company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rVXQUV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. John J. Esmay, Esq. Thomas Z. Sperber, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com john.esmay@blbglaw.com thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Barbara Hart, Esq. Abe Alexander, Esq. Lauren J. Salamon, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: kfisch@gelaw.com bhart@gelaw.com aalexander@gelaw.com lsalamon@gelaw.com - and - Lewis T. LeClair, Esq. McKOOL SMITH PC 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com FAST EASY: 9th Circuit Flips Dismissal of Coffey TCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VICKI COFFEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC; GFSG, LLC, doing business as Keller Williams Realty Phoenix; KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-4066 (9th Cir.), Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and remanded for further proceedings. The case involves the definition of "telephone solicitation" under the TCPA. Plaintiff Coffey alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by contacting her through phone calls and text messages despite her registration on the national "do not call" registry. Coffey, an Arizona resident, claims she received at least six calls and two text messages in fall 2024 from an employee of Fast Easy Offer, LLC (FEO), a real estate company that markets itself as helping homeowners sell properties and generate investor deals. The complaint alleges FEO buys homes below market value and then resells or assigns them to investors at a premium. Coffey further alleges that FEO operates in coordination with Keller Williams Realty Phoenix ("KW Phoenix") through GFSG LLC, sharing leads and revenue, and that FEO's co-founder helps structure this arrangement. She claims most consumers who respond to FEO's calls ultimately become clients of either FEO or KW Phoenix. Based on these allegations, Coffey filed a putative class action against FEO, KW Phoenix, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. ("KWRI"), alleging violations of the TCPA's private right of action. The Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the calls and texts were not "telephone solicitations" under the TCPA and that KWRI could not be held vicariously liable for FEO's conduct. Coffey filed an amended complaint, but the Defendants renewed their arguments. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that FEO's calls and texts were not "telephone solicitations" because they did not explicitly encourage the purchase of goods or services. Based on the plain text of the Act's definition of "telephone solicitation," and consistent with Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that explicit mention of a good, product, or service is not necessary), the Ninth Circuit Panel held that Coffey adequately pleaded that the messages at issue qualified as telephone solicitations. It opined that 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(4) defines telephone solicitation as "the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person." The Panel concluded that the "purpose" at issue is the purpose of the "initiation" of the call or message. Coffey alleged that one purpose of defendants’ initiation of the messages at issue was to solicit the purchase of real estate brokerage services, and she therefore sufficiently alleged that the messages were initiated for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of services. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/0ezjman. Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- (argued), Apollo Law LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Emma L. Freeman -- emma@apollo-law.com -- Apollo Law LLC, Brooklyn, New York; Alexander D. Kruzyk -- akruzyk@pkglegal.com -- Pardell Kruzyk & Giribaldo PLLC, Austin, Texas; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Leif Overvold -- LOvervold@mayerbrown.com -- and Daniel E. Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher J. Mikesh -- cmikesh@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, New York, New York; Eric M. Fraser -- efraser@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, Arizona; Anthony T. King -- aking@swlaw.com -- and Megan M. Carrasco -- mcarrasco@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; James M. Cool -- jcool@frgalaw.com -- Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendants-Appellees. FCA US: 9th Circuit Amends Arbitration Ruling in Olson Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FCA US, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-6527 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a Summary Order amending its prior Opinion, which had affirmed the district court's denial of FCA US's motion to compel arbitration. In the Opinion filed on April 7, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly decided the threshold issue of enforceability under Rogers v. Tug Hill Operating, LLC, 76 F.4th 279 (4th Cir. 2023), but erred in its conclusion on third-party beneficiary status, which led to the improper denial of USHealth's motion to compel arbitration. Hence, it reversed the district court's denial of USHealth's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings pending arbitration. In its Summary Order, the Ninth Circuit ordered that its Opinion be amended as follows: The first sentence on page 10, paragraph two, is amended to read: Henry Schein involved a dispute between a dental equipment distributor, Archer and White, and two companies, Henry Schein and a successor in interest to a dental equipment manufacturer, referred to collectively by the Supreme Court as "Schein." The final sentence on page 11, paragraph two, and its accompanying footnote are amended to read: The Supreme Court treated as undisputed that the two companies referred to as "Schein" were effectively parties to the contract and instructed that "[w]hen the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, . . . a court possesses no power to decide the arbitrability issue . . . even if the court thinks that the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular dispute is wholly groundless." Although neither Henry Schein nor the successor in interest was an original signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement at issue in the case, the Supreme Court treated them as equivalent to a party to the contract. See Henry Schein, 586 U.S. at 66 ("The relevant contract between the parties provided: 'Disputes. . . . Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual OLSON V. FCA US, LLC 5 property of [Schein]), shall be resolved by binding arbitration.'" (alteration inserting "[Schein]" in original)). But that does not mean we must do the same with FCA here. The Supreme Court decided only one discrete issue in Henry Schein and then remanded for the Fifth Circuit to address any "other arguments that Archer and White has properly preserved," id. at 72, one of which was whether the third-party non-signatories could invoke the arbitration clause at all, see Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 935 F.3d 274, 284 (5th Cir. 2019) (treating as preserved but declining to address “Archer’s alternative argument that third parties to the arbitration clause cannot enforce such an arbitration clause"). The third sentence in the paragraph that begins on page 11 and continues to page 12 is amended to read: Again, in Henry Schein, it was treated as undisputed that the companies collectively referred to as "Schein" were effectively parties to the arbitration agreement containing the delegation clause. With those amendments, the Panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Friedland has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Schroeder and Schreier recommend denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The Ninth Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. No further petitions may be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order is available at https://sl1nk.com/47bxrjt. Mark P. Chalos (argued) -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Kenneth S. Byrd -- kbyrd@lchb.com -- Christopher E. Coleman -- ccoleman@lchb.com -- and Amelia A. Haselkorn, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Nashville, Tennessee; Stuart C. Talley -- stuart@ktblegal.com -- and Ian J. Barlow -- ian@ktblegal.com -- Kershaw Talley Barlow PC, Sacramento, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Brandon L. Boxler (argued) -- brandon.boxler@kleinthomaslaw.com -- Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Richmond, Virginia; Fred J. Fresard -- fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com -- Klein Thomas Lee & Fresard, Troy, Michigan; for Defendant-Appellant. FIVE BELOW INC: Securities Actions Stayed ----------------------------------------- Five Below, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 2, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2026, that actions in the the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been stayed pending the outcome of another consolidated class action. Defendants have agreed with the plaintiffs to a stay of the state court proceedings in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and are working with them to seek court approval. A putative securities class action was filed against the company and a certain former senior officer in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class of its investors who purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded securities between March 20, 2024, and July 16, 2024. On Sept. 16, 2024, a similar action was commenced against the company in the same court on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded securities between Dec. 1, 2022, and July 16, 2024. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements made by the Company. On Oct. 28, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing lead plaintiff. On Jan. 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 14, 2025, defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss said complaint, and on May 13, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a response in opposition to its Motion to Dismiss. Defendants filed their reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2025. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on Aug. 25, 2025. On Oct. 3, 2025, the defendants filed an answer and on January 16, 2026, lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification, which defendants opposed on March 13, 2026, and for which briefing concluded in April 2026. The hearing for Class Certification was scheduled for June 5, 2026, and the parties are now in the discovery phase. Additionally, in October 2024, the company received two separate letters from purported shareholders demanding that the company investigate certain potential derivative claims relating to the same circumstances and allegations included in the shareholder class action. It subsequently received four additional separate letters from purported shareholders making similar demands. In response, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee, which investigated the allegations contained in each of these letters. On Sept. 10, 2025, the Special Litigation Committee completed its investigation and determined that it would not be in the best interests of the company to pursue litigation or take other steps in response to the demand letters. In October and December 2025, four of the purported shareholders filed derivative suits based on the allegations in their demand letters. Two of these suits were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and have been consolidated into one action, and two were filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and have been consolidated into one action. Five Below, Inc. is a specialty value retailer offering a wide range of trend-right products for teens, tweens, and beyond, typically priced at $5 or below. The company operates a network of stores across the United States and also sells merchandise through its e-commerce platform. FLUKE CORPORATION: Sauerland Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Sauerland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLUKE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-01927 (W.D. Wash., June 3, 2026), is brought against Fluke for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On September 29, 2025, Fluke discovered suspicious activity on its network and launched an investigation. This investigation revealed that criminal third-party actors had access to Fluke's network via a third-party application and were able to copy customer and employee PII between approximately August 10, 2025, and October 7, 2025. The Defendant conducted an investigation and review of the Data Breach and disclosed that at least Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and "an indicator of whether you self-identified as having a disability." (collectively, "Private Information"). In providing their Private Information to Defendant, Plaintiff and the Class Members reasonably expected this sophisticated business entity to keep their Private Information confidential and secured from unauthorized disclosures, to use this information for business purposes only, and to disclose it only as authorized. Defendant failed to do so, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in the Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect its customers' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. Fluke "is the world leader in professional electronic test tools and software for measuring and condition monitoring."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 916.823.6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com FUJITEC AMERICA: Eller Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN ELLER, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUJITEC AMERICA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07456-SRM-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 3, 2026, will move the Court to certify the following classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: 1. Salaried Exempt Subclass: "All individuals who are or were employed by the Defendant and classified as salaried, exempt employees in California during the Class Period (April 17, 2021 to the date of judgment)." 2. Non-Exempt Subclass: "All individuals who are or were employed by the Defendant and classified as hourly non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period (April 17, 2021 to the date of judgment)." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint the Plaintiff Lauren Eller as class representative for both the Salaried Exempt Subclass and the Non-Exempt Subclass. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint W Employment Law, APC as class counsel. Ms. Eller was employed by the Defendant as a salaried, exempt Sales Executive at its Santa Fe Springs, California location from Jan. 9, 2023, until her resignation on April 5, 2024. She received a base salary of $70,000 per year plus commissions earned on sales. The Defendant's own document production confirms that the Defendant never provided the Plaintiff with any written commission agreement setting forth the method by which her commissions were to be computed and paid. Fujitec designs, manufactures, installs, modernizes, and services vertical transportation systems. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vJPVEx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob N. Whitehead,Esq. W EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 674-4922 E-mail: jacob@wemploymentlaw.com G.L.O.M. SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Negrete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.L.O.M. Substance Abuse Program Inc. The case is styled as Dolores Negrete, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.L.O.M. Substance Abuse Program Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0004354 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." G.L.O.M. Substance Abuse Program Inc. -- https://glom-sap.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization offering licensed residential treatment programs designed for adults seeking long-term recovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com GASTRO HEALTH: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Voletsky Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JILL VOLETSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23801-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harm it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The complaint relates that between February 25, 2026, and March 2, 2026, an unauthorized actor infiltrated Defendant's network through a phishing scheme and gained access to certain files containing sensitive information. The files impacted in the Data Breach contained a wide variety of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, government-issued or state-issued ID number, medical record number, patient account number, Medicare or Medicaid number, health insurance or group account number, diagnosis or treatment information, prescription information, and provider or clinic information. (collectively "Private Information"). As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has also suffered injury directly and proximately caused by the Data Breach, including: (a) theft of Plaintiff's valuable Private Information; (b) the imminent and certain impending injury flowing from fraud and identity theft posed by Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of cybercriminals; (c) damages to and/or diminution in value of Plaintiff's Private Information that was entrusted to Defendant with the understanding that Defendant would safeguard this information against disclosure; (d) loss of the benefit of the bargain with Defendant to provide adequate and reasonable data security; and (e) continued risk to Plaintiff's Private Information, which remains in the possession of Defendant, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Plaintiff Jill Voletsky is a citizen and resident of Boynton Beach, Florida and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Gastro Health, LLC is a medical services provider that specializes in treating gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, and digestive health. Defendant has several locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com GASTRO HEALTH: Love Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA LOVE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23886 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2026) is a class action against Gastro Health for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Gastro Health patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information from criminal hackers as a result of two phishing attacks. The private information compromised in the data breach contained highly sensitive patient data, representing a gold mine for data thieves. The data included, but is not limited to, Social Security numbers, treatment and diagnosis information, health insurance information, and prescription information that Gastro Health collected and maintained. According to the complaint, Gastro Health failed to properly implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the private information. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Gastro Health's negligent conduct as the private information that Gastro Health collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Gastro Health, based in Miami, Florida, is a medical group made up of physicians and advanced practitioners specializing in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, and digestive health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 410-6930 E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street 18th Floor #3037 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (929) 474-6448 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - Evan D. Robert, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: erobert@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com GATEHOUSE MEDIA: 6th Cir. Remands "Ewalt" to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, JOHN EWALT, STEVE WYLIE, and BONNIE NAVARRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., dba The Columbus Dispatch, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-4015 (6th Cir.), to state court. Over six years ago, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against GateHouse in Ohio state court. GateHouse timely removed the case to federal court, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). For most of the next five years, the parties litigated the dispute in its new federal home. Eventually, the district court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. GateHouse's victory in defeating class certification, however, came with at least one apparent downside. In the same order, the district court remanded the case to state court, concluding that the district court could no longer exercise jurisdiction over the case following the denial of class certification, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Back in state court, the case sat idle for eight months until the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on January 24, 2025. The filing spurred GateHouse to once more remove the case to federal court, this time on February 18, 2025, within 30 days of the Plaintiffs' filing, again invoking CAFA as the basis for federal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs viewed this latest removal effort as untimely and accordingly moved to remand the case to state court. The district court, however, denied the motion. The Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1). The Sixth Circuit recognized the obvious reality that GateHouse's fate was largely the result of an error it did not commit. While the Court is powerless to turn back time and remedy the error, GateHouse was not similarly powerless in the face of the district court's remand order. GateHouse had good-faith legal arguments that the case should have remained in federal court even after class certification was denied. Yet GateHouse stayed silent. The company neither filed a motion contesting the district court's remand order nor sought certification of that order for interlocutory appeal. To be sure, the state of play here was atypical. Yet that reality does not change the fact that GateHouse had opportunities to address the matter in a timely fashion. Regrettably, its belated attempt to do so came too late in the day. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court with instructions to remand to state court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/5xgyex3. ON BRIEF: Todd H. Neuman -- neuman@aksnlaw.com -- Rick L. Ashton -- ashton@asnalaw.com -- Jeffrey R. Corcoran -- corcoran@asnalaw.com -- ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN & ASHTON LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Lynn Rowe Larsen -- llarsen@taftlaw.com -- Daniel H. Bryan -- dbryan@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, James D. Abrams -- jabrams@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. GENERAL MOTORS: Menaker Sues Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD MENAKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11701-SJM-CI (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) s an action for damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, resulting from Defendant's practice of charging its customers inflated prices in response to unlawfully imposed tariffs. Beginning on February 1, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 14195 imposing IEEPA-based duties on certain imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, respectively. He later issued Executive Order 14245 on March 24, 2025 concerning tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil, and Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025 declaring a national emergency based on large and persistent United States goods trade deficits and imposing reciprocal tariffs on a broad range of trading partners. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the IEEPA and other statutes cited in the Tariff Executive Orders do not authorize the President to impose tariffs. 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 or the liquidation process. However, the Defendant has already passed its unlawful IEEPA tariff burdens onto Plaintiff and members of the Class by directly charging elevated prices for its products. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were thereby deprived of money paid to Defendant for unlawful IEEPA tariffs, says the suit. General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that is licensed to do business in Michigan and which does business in Michigan. The Company advertises, markets, sells, and distributes motor vehicles throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil J. Marchand, Esq. Brandon S. Corcoran, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 45 Ottawa Ave. SW, Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 831-1764 E-mail: marchandn@millerjohnson.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com jdunklin@mcgpc.com GIBSON BRANDS INC: McWhirter Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley McWhirter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gibson Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01168-JRS-MKK (S.D. Ind., June 2, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.gibson.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Echols and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Echols' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase an extensive assortment of premium stringed instruments, including electric, acoustic, and bass guitars, complemented by amplifiers, effect pedals, cases, straps, picks, strings, and other related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law GOLDEN HEAVEN: $1.7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP announced that the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. Stock (NASDAQ: GDHG): SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION UDANI FAMILY LIVING TRUST, DATED 9/18/2015, Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN HEAVEN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD., QIONG JIN, JINGUANG GONG, BIN CHEN, DAOFU LIN, REVERE SECURITIES LLC, R.F. LAFFERTY & CO., COGENCY GLOBAL INC., COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, QINGYU INVESTMENT LTD., XUEZHENG CHEN, and JINZHENG INVESTMENT CO PTE. LTD, Defendants Index No. 161978/2023 CLASS ACTION The Honorable Andrew Borrok Part 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE GOLDEN HEAVEN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 2:23-cv-10619-HDV-SK CLASS ACTION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS THAT: (I) PURCHASED GOLDEN HEAVEN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD.'S ("GOLDEN HEAVEN," NASDAQ TICKER: GDHG) ORDINARY SHARES ("GOLDEN HEAVEN STOCK") PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH GOLDEN HEAVEN'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING CONDUCTED ON OR ABOUT APRIL 12, 2023 ("IPO"); OR (II) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED GOLDEN HEAVEN STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 13, 2023 AND DECEMBER 8, 2023, INCLUSIVE.1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and an Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division (the "Court"), that the litigation (the "State Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the plaintiff and proposed class representative in this State Action, Udani Family Living Trust, Dated 9/18/2015, (the "State Plaintiff"), together with lead plaintiff and proposed class representative Rahul Patange (the "Federal Plaintiff," together with State Plaintiff, the "Plaintiffs") in a related action captioned In re Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 2:23-cv-10619-HDV-SK (C.D. Cal.), pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Federal Action"), have reached a proposed settlement of both Actions with Defendants Golden Heaven, Revere Securities LLC, R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc., Colleen A. De Vries, Cogency Global Inc, and BF Borgers CPA PC ("Settling Defendants") for $1,700,000 in cash ("Settlement Amount") on behalf of the Settlement Class, that, if approved, will resolve all claims against the Defendants in both Actions. A Fairness Hearing will be held on September 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, before the Honorable Andrew Borrok, either in person at the New York County Courthouse, Part 53, Courtroom 238, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court). At the hearing, the Court will determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the claims in State Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation and the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Long Notice") should be granted; (iii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the State Action should be finally certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP should be finally appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation which will provide compensation to eligible Settlement Class Members in both Actions should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 1/3 (one-third) plus interest of the Settlement Amount and reimbursement of litigation expenses of not more than $170,000 should be approved and whether the two Plaintiffs should be granted compensatory awards of no more than $10,000 each for their services to the Settlement Class. If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Actions and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Long Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services at Golden Heaven Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063, info@strategicclaims.net, 866-274-4004. Copies of the Long Notice and Proof of Claim can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator at www.strategicclaims.net/GoldenHeaven. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than September 3, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Proof of Claim. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the State Action. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than September 3, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the State Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Settling Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than September 3, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. Requests for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim form should be made to: Golden Heaven Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 info@strategicclaims.net Toll-Free: 866-274-4004 Inquiries about the Settlement, other than requests for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim, should be made to the below Class Counsel: Jeremy Lieberman Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com Phillip Kim The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. By Order of the Court GOVCIO LLC: Reider Sues Over Unlawful Obtaining of Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Reider, Shulamis Rouzaud, Timothy Blue, David Brewer, and Michael Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOVCIO, LLC, PREMIUM PARKING SERVICE, LLC, MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., and LOB, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02207-MJM (D. Md., June 3, 2026), is brought against each Defendant for knowingly obtaining, using, and/or disclosing the statutorily protected personal information of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class—specifically, names and addresses derived from state departments of motor vehicles ("DMV") records—in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendants Premium and MPS surreptitiously use "license plate recognition" ("LPR") technology, capturing and reading vehicle license plates at Defendant Premium's parking facilities, so that Defendant GovCIO can then illegally obtain Plaintiffs and Class Members' statutorily protected information from state DMV records. Once GovCIO obtains the Plaintiffs and Class Members' DPPA-protected personal information, Defendants GovCIO, MPS, Premium, and LOB, then illegally obtain and use and disclose that statutorily protected information to send letters (entitled "Parking Tickets/Invoices" and "Late Notices") to Plaintiffs' and Class Members' home addresses, demanding sums that are 1,000%+ above the initial parking cost. In so doing, Defendants each willfully and recklessly disregarded the privacy protections afforded by the DPPA to harass, threaten, and intimidate Plaintiffs and Class Members into paying inflated amounts of money for trivial, alleged parking violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all victims of Defendants' scheme. The Defendant Premium is a parking management operator and parking related technology company, often hired by owners of private parking lots and decks around the country, to manage parking and enforce payment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Risch, Esq. MANN & RISCH, LLC 101 E. Chesapeake Ave., Ste. 403 Towson, MD 21286 Phone: (410) 929-5145 Email: nate@mannrisch.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St., Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com GREATMATS.COM: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GREATMATS.COM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-06515 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.greatmats.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Fisher Sues Over Discriminatory Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Fisher, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-05954 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2026), is brought against Defendant seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in its facilities--despite Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant claims to offer rental facilities to the general public, including The Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. The Plaintiff asserts Defendant had, and continues to have, a policy of releasing Synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities and throughout its facilities. Indeed, some Class members already know of this from their past visits to Defendant's Facilities and unwitting exposure to its fragrance. This action is brought to redress and end this prolonged pattern of unlawful conduct once and for all. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action, individually, and on behalf of the Class of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities. In doing so, the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Class, seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's numerous unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices, as detailed herein, which run afoul of a multitude of state and federal laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer from chemical sensitivities and, when exposed to fragrance. The Defendant is a business that owns and operates rental facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com GRIFFIN ORGANICS: Artiega Settlement Approval & Class Cert. Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Mauricio E. Zavala Artiega, etc., respondent, v. Griffin Organics, Inc., et al., appellants, Case Nos. 2022-03268, 2022-03592, Index No. 61483/21 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, Westchester County's March 15, 2022 order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class settlement approval, including conditional class certification, appointment of class counsel, and approval of notice to class members regarding the proposed settlement and fairness hearing. In a putative class action to recover unpaid wages, the Defendants appeal from (1) a decision of Judge Damaris E. Torrent of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 15, 2022, and (2) an order issued upon that decision, which granted the Plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to approve the Plaintiff's proposed schedule for final settlement approval, to conditionally certify the proposed class for settlement purposes, to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel, and to approve the notice of the proposed settlement of the class action and fairness hearing. In August 2016, the Plaintiff, a former employee of Griffin Organics, Inc. and Griffin's Landscaping Corp. filed a class action in the Southern District of New York. He asserted wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, as well as claims under New York Labor Law on behalf of a proposed class. In May 2017, the parties participated in private mediation and reached a settlement of all claims in the federal action. The settlement was memorialized in a term sheet signed by counsel for both sides and Defendant Glenn Griffin. The term sheet required the parties to negotiate a final settlement agreement in good faith and provided that disputes over ancillary terms would be resolved by an arbitrator. Under the agreement, the Plaintiff would release his FLSA claims with prejudice in exchange for a $15,000 payment. The parties also agreed that the New York Labor Law claims would be dismissed without prejudice, after which the Plaintiff would file a state-court action to pursue a class settlement valued at $585,000. The term sheet expressly stated that its provisions were legally binding. Before the settlement agreement was finalized and submitted for court approval, the Defendants retained new counsel on June 26, 2017. After the change in representation, they allegedly refused to continue settlement negotiations or comply with the terms of the term sheet. The Plaintiff responded by moving to compel arbitration under the term sheet's arbitration provision and to enforce the settlement. The district court granted the motion, and in a May 31, 2018 arbitration award, the arbitrator found that the term sheet was valid and enforceable. After remanding the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of the arbitration award, the district court approved the settlement agreement on May 19, 2021. About three months later, the Plaintiff filed this state-court action on behalf of himself and a proposed class seeking, among other things, unpaid wages. The proposed class included drivers, laborers, gardeners, landscapers, snow shovelers, helpers, and other employees who worked for one or more of the defendants during the six-year period preceding the filing of the federal action. The Plaintiff subsequently moved for several forms of relief related to the proposed class settlement, including approval of a schedule for final settlement approval, conditional certification of the settlement class, appointment of class counsel, and approval of a proposed notice informing class members of the settlement and upcoming fairness hearing. The Plaintiff defined the class, for settlement purposes only, as the "named Plaintiff and all current and former non-managerial employees (excluding administrative staff) from August 22, 2010, to the date of preliminary approval." The Defendants opposed the motion, and the plaintiff filed a reply affirmation in support. In an order dated March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the Plaintiff's motion. The Defendants appealed. Contrary to the Defendants' contention, the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court correctly determined that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the Defendants from relitigating the issues of whether the term sheet was binding and enforceable or had been voided by the Defendants' purported default under the terms of the term sheet. The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the Plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirements for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902. The Appellate Division also declined the Plaintiff's request to impose sanctions against the defendants on appeal. It found that the remaining arguments were either unnecessary to address in light of its ruling or without merit. For these reasons, the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the decision because no appeal lies from a decision, affirmed the order, and awarded the Plaintiff one bill of costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision & Order is available at https://l1nq.com/4pjpzdm. Zabell & Collotta, P.C., Bohemia, NY (Saul D. Zabell -- SZabell@laborlawsny.com -- of counsel),for appellants. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, New York, NY (C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- of counsel), for respondent. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ: Iniguez Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alvaro Iniguez, Brooke Langford, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB, H&M Fashion USA, Inc., Case No. 26-00002-02205-32 was removed from the Spokane County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00244-ACE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB -- https://www2.hm.com/en_us/index.html -- commonly known by its brand name H&M, is a Swedish multinational clothing company headquartered in Stockholm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: David Ian Freeburg, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Email: david.freeburg@us.dlapiper.com H. SOLIMAN MEDICAL: McCormick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. Soliman Medical Corporation. The case is styled as Leslie McCormick, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H. Soliman Medical Corporation, Case No. 26CV013161 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Contract." Dr. Hisham Soliman is a well-known psychiatrist who serves the Sacramento, Folsom, and Roseville California areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW #640, Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Email: dperry@masonllp.com HCMP INC: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, See Says -------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HCMP, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1163 (S.D. Ind., June 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.impactdogcrates.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that, while searching online for a dog travel crate for an upcoming trip, Aaron See discovered on May 22, 2026, impactdogcrates.com offering heavy-duty dog crates and related accessories designed for safety, durability, and secure transport. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader, See encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing a purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to See. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against See 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. Plaintiff Aaron See is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant HCMP, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase dog crates, collapsible kennels, travel carriers, crate accessories, feeding attachments, mats, storage solutions, and transport equipment. 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 HONEST COMPANY: July 13 Derivative Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION IN RE THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 2:21-cv-09281-MCS-PLA EXHIBT E SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS ("SUMMARY NOTICE") TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE HONEST COMPANY, INC. ("HONEST" OR THE COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 12, 2026. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE AN HONEST STOCKHOLDER, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR MONETARY PAYRIENT, IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to the stockholder derivative action, have reached an agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and for the benefit of Honest. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation. This notice should be read In conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A link to the text of the Stipulation and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Action may be found on the Investor Relations page of Honest's website at https://investors.honest.com Under the terms of the Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, Honest will adopt and implement corporate governance reforms, which all parties agree confer substantial benefits upon Honest and its stockholders. Honest's Board of Directors, including each of its independent, non-defendant directors, in a good faith exercise of business judgment determined that: (i) the Settlement confers a substantial benefit upon Honest and its stockholders; and (ii) the Settlement, and each of its terms, is in all respects fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of Honest and its stockholders. In consideration of the substantial benefits conferred upon Honest by Stockholders and Stockholders' Counsel's efforts, Defendants and/or their insurers shall pay Stockholders' Counsel's attorneys fees, costs, and expenses of $1,195,000.00, subject to Court approval. Stockholders' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service awards to be paid to each of the Stockholders in an amount of $2,000.00 each. A hearing will be held on July 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Mark C. Scarsi at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court) (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement. The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may change without further written notice to Honest stockholders, or the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Honest stockholders to appear at the hearing by telephone or video, without further written notice to Honest stockholders. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Honest stockholders must or may participate by telephone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the "Investor Relations" section of Honest's website, https://investors.honest.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any Current Honest Stockholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth In the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Amount or Service Awards, may file with the Court a written objection. An objector must, at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing: (1) file with the Clerk of the Court and serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon the below listed counsel a written objection to the Settlement setting forth: (i) a written notice of objection with the case name and number in re The Honest Company, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:21-cv-09281-44-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.)); (ii) the Person's name, legal address, and telephone number; (iii) notice of whether such Person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing and the reasons such Person desires to appear and be heard, and whether such Person is represented by counsel and if so, contact information for counsel; (iv) competent evidence that such Person held shares of Honest common stock as of the date of the Stipulation and continues to hold such stock as of the date the objection is made, including the date(s) such shares were acquired; (v) a statement of objections to any matters before the Court, the grounds therefor, as well as all documents or writings such Person desires the Court to consider; and (vi) the identities of any witnesses such Person plans on calling at the Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their expected testimony. Any objector who does not timely file and serve a notice of intention to appear in accordance with this paragraph shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement and shall not be permitted to appear at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause shown. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, First Street U.S, Courthouse 350 W 1st Street, Suite 4311, Los Angeles, CA 90012 and served upon each of the following Settling Parties' counsel: Counsel for Californla Federal Plaintiffs: THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 Email: tbrown@thebrowlawfirm.net Counsel for Defendants: COOLEY LLP Koji Fukumura 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Email: kfukumura@cooley.com YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN June 22, 2026. Only stockholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise. If you fail to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above you shall be deemed to have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection(s). You may obtain further information by contacting California Federal Plaintiffs' Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C, 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10027, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR HONEST REGARDING THIS NOTICE IGNITE MEDICAL: Shannon Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SHANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT INDEPENDENCE, LLC, and IGNITE TEAMPARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06131 (N.D. Ill., May 26, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees, who elect to opt in pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation unlawfully withheld by Defendants, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were subject to Defendants' timekeeping and payroll practices that determined the hours credited for compensation that resulted in the failure to pay all overtime compensation due for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff also brings this action individually and on behalf of a subclass of discharged Missouri employees to recover unpaid wages earned and due at discharge, together with statutory penalty wages, interest, costs, and all other relief available under Mo. Rev. Stat. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid nurse from approximately June 2023 through approximately March 2025. Ignite Medical Resort Independence, LLC operates, manages, controls, and provides employment-related services to one or more skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities in Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com IONQ INC: Garcia Sues Over Privacy Bait and Switch Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Paul Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IONQ, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.IONQ.COM, Case No. 26STCV17343 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 2, 2026), is brought involving an outrageous privacy "bait and switch" scheme: Defendant lures visitors to ionq.com (the Website) by assuring consumers that it respects their privacy. The Defendant even presents visitors with a "consent banner" that purports to allow visitors to choose whether to permit Defendant to install third party tracking cookies used to harvest their private information. However, Defendant secretly tracks, de-anonymizes, and sells visitors 'personal information before the consent "banner" even appears and continues to track even after a visitor rejects cookies. The Defendant has violated California law. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website several times--most recently in early 2026--and elected to reject all third-party cookies. The Defendant nonetheless secretly installed tracking technology on Plaintiff's device and caused Plaintiff to be de-anonymized, tracked and surveilled while using the internet, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that operates the website and markets quantum computing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com IP HOLDINGS UNLTD: Lamperis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lamperis, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. IP HOLDINGS UNLTD, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06418 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.ecko.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates its Website offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ iRhythm Holdings, Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2026, that delivering notice that on June 3, 2026, iRhythm Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of iRhythm Holdings, Inc., entered into a binding Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to fully resolve a putative class action securities litigation titled "Glazing Employers and Glaziers' Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.," Case No. 3:24-cv-706-JSC, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This was pending against iRhythm and Quentin Blackford, its Chief Executive Officer and President. The settlement constitutes a binding resolution of the action as a putative securities class action, subject to any further required court approvals and procedures applicable in the Northern District of California. It pertains solely to the claims asserted and is intended to fully resolve that litigation as against all defendants. Additionally, the company reported that it does not resolve the previously-disclosed stockholder derivative lawsuits brought by stockholders on behalf of iRhythm. Those stockholder derivative actions remain pending and are separate from the putative class action securities litigation resolved by the settlement. iRhythm Holdings, Inc. is a digital health care company that specializes in ambulatory cardiac monitoring and diagnostics, combining wearable biosensor technology with cloud-based data analytics to detect and manage cardiac arrhythmias. The company serves physicians, hospitals and payors across the United States. JAVIER'S-DTLA LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Javier's-DTLA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alicia Alvarez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Javier's-DTLA, LLC; Javier's-CC, LLC; Javier's-LA, LLC; Javier's-Pasadena, LLC; Javier's-SD, LLC; Javier's-UTC, LLC; Marcos & Javiers, LLC; Case No. 26STCV17436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Javier's-DTLA, LLC -- https://www.javiersfinestfoods.com/downtown-la -- operates the acclaimed upscale, coastal Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com KENDRA SCOTT: Cumor Class Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JASON CUMOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENDRA SCOTT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-CA-004320, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01591-CEH-AEP to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that Kendra Scott violated the Florida Electronic Mail Communications Act. The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about February 6, 2026, he received a commercial e mail message from Defendant featuring a false and misleading "free" offer in the subject line. The Plaintiff alleges that this email is misleading because the offer was contingent on Plaintiff and consumers first spending $100. Kendra Scott, LLC designs, manufactures, repairs, and sells jewelry.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron S. Blynn, Esq. VENABLE LLP 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 913-6685 Facsimile: (305) 349-2310 E-mail: asblynn@venable.com KENT WATER SPORTS: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Martrell Desamonta Booker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kent Water Sports Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06597 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.boteboard.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of outdoor recreation and water sports products, including inflatable kayaks, paddle boards, floats, and related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law KLN ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of "Trammel" with Prejudice Reversed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KLN ENTERPRISES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; DBA, Wiley Wallaby, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-6097 (9th Cir.), Judge Eric tung of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a putative class action against KLN, alleging that representations on KLN's licorice product packaging were false and misleading. The Plaintiff bought the product believing the representation to be true. It turned out, however, that the product contained an artificial flavor. Laboratory testing revealed that the product's flavoring was not naturally occurring but made from an artificial petroleum substrate. The Plaintiff alleged that, although the product's label represented that it was free of artificial colors and flavors, the product contained an artificial flavor—DL malic acid. At least this is what the Plaintiff alleged (albeit with more detail) in his complaint. Defendant KLN is the manufacturer of licorice products, including the Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice ("Product"). It represented to consumers that its berry snacks product contained no artificial flavors. Plaintiff Trammell alleged that he purchased the Defendant's Product believing the representation to be true and that he reviewed its labels before purchasing. It turned out, however, that the product contained an artificial flavor. Laboratory testing revealed that the product's flavoring was not naturally occurring but made from an artificial petroleum substrate. He filed a putative class action complaint against KLN for: (1) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach of express warranty. Trammell asserted claims individually and on behalf of a proposed California class. KLN moved to dismiss Trammell's complaint, and the district court granted the motion. It concluded that Trammell failed to plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid used in the product is artificial, and that the allegations therefore fell short of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. Moreover, it found that Trammell failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the Product's label. Concluding that the complaint lacked a plausible claim of deception, the district court dismissed all three of Trammell's claims with prejudice. Trammell appealed. The Panel held that the district court erroneously concluded that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard when it did not plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid used in the product was artificial. The Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient when they set out: the "who" of the fraud (KLN); the "what" (KLN's representation that its product was free of artificial colors and flavors); the "when" (around the time the Plaintiff purchased the product in May 2023); the "where" (the purchase occurred at a Target in Encinitas, California); and the "how" (the statements on the product's label represented that the product was naturally flavored and free of artificial flavors and colors). The Plaintiff also gave notice to KLN and provided the court with some assurance that his theory of liability had a basis in fact. Moreover, the panel held that the district court also erred in concluding that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege a plausible claim of consumer fraud under California law. Under the "reasonable consumer standard" that governs claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Plaintiff plausibly pleaded that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived by a product that claimed to be free of artificial flavors when that claim was (allegedly) not true. Accordingly, the Panel reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/7ffqha2. Charles C. Weller (argued) -- egal@cweller.com -- Charles C. Weller APC, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jaikaran Singh (argued) -- jsingh@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, San Diego, California; Kelsey Finn -- kfinn@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. KODIAK UNION ROOFING: Swearengin Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jarrett Eli Swearengin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KODIAK UNION ROOFING SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-005733 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00948. The Complaint alleges 8 allegations: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sumy Kim, Esq. Annie Hatton, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.578.6900 Email: SKim@ohaganmeyer.com Ahatton@ohaganmeyer.com KROGER CO: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Certification Order in Solano --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELISHA SOLANO; KATHLEEN ZACH; DENISE CONROY, individually and on behalf of other customers, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE KROGER CO., DBA Fred Meyer, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-536 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order granting class certification. On appeal, The Kroger Company (Fred Meyer) argues that Article III precludes class certification because the class includes unnamed members who have not suffered an injury, and the named Plaintiffs' injuries are self-inflicted. It also argues common issues do not predominate over individual issues. The Ninth Circuit rejects those arguments and affirms. Firstly, even if the class contains uninjured, unnamed members, at class certification, the Court's standing inquiry focuses on the named Plaintiffs. Secondly, the named Plaintiffs' injuries were not self-inflicted, as the record shows only the possibility that they might have been able to obtain a refund if they sought one. Lastly, even assuming that some class members were adequately compensated through refunds, the district court reasonably found that common issues predominated over individual ones. The possibility that a class "potentially includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members" does not preclude certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://sl1nk.com/amr240l LAO YU: Marcelino Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIELA VICTORIANO MARCELINO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAO YU YUAN DUMPLING HOUSE INC., and HUI LI YU, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03323 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay Plaintiff her lawfully earned overtime compensation in direct contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint relates the Defendants failed to provide her with weekly wage statements/pay stubs setting forth gross wages, deductions, and net wages. By failing to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice and weekly wage statements identifying her actual hours worked, Defendants prevented Plaintiff from determining and seeking payment for the precise number of unpaid hours and, therefore, prevented Plaintiff from promptly raising issues of underpayment with her employers. As a result, she was harmed by being deprived of her income for longer than she would have been had he been able to raise her underpayment earlier, says the suit. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the FLSA, she is entitled to recover from Defendants: (a) unpaid overtime compensation, (b) liquidated damages, (c) prejudgment and post judgment interest, and (d) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, she is entitled to recover from Defendants: (a) unpaid overtime compensation, (b) unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day that Plaintiffs work shift exceeded 10 hours, (c) liquidated and statuto1y damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff GABRIELA VICTORIANO MARCELINO is a resident of New York County, New York. She was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt dishwasher and porter from March 7, 2023 until May 5, 2026. Defendant LAO YU YUAN DUMPLING HOUSE INC., owns and operates an Asian restaurant doing business as "Lao Yu Yuan Dumpling House," located at 42-35 Main Street, Suite lM, Flushing, New York 11355. Defendant HUI LI YU, is the President, Chief Executive Officer, shareholder, owner, proprietor, supervisor, and managing agent of LAO YU YUAN DUMPLING HOUSE INC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com LAVENDER LINGERIE: Hoffert Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- AJANI HOFFERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAVENDER LINGERIE, LLC, dba Savage X Fenty, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05522 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2026) is a class action arising from Savage X's retention of profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the U.S. federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. The U.S. importers -- including Savage X -- responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. Savage X imposed an explicit tariff surcharge on consumer purchases, including at checkout through its website, says the suit. Savage X collected the tariffs from consumers through its tariff surcharge. The federal government owes it refunds of the same tariff payments. Unless restrained by this Court, Savage X stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Savage X during the Class Period and who paid tariff surcharges reflecting Savage X's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Lavender Lingerie, LLC manufactures and retails women's lingerie. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.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 LECTRIC EBIKES: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BARLOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lectric eBikes LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06378 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://lectricebikes.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Barlow and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff Barlow was searching for an electric bicycle as a gift for his nephew. While searching for a brand that offers electric bicycles, he discovered the Defendant's website. To learn more, Barlow reviewed the company's customer reviews and decided to explore the available offerings. After browsing through the categories, he became interested in the XP Lite2 Arctic White eBike and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader, Plaintiff Barlow encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Barlow 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, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Barlow 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. Lectric eBikes LLC operates the website that offers a range of folding e-bikes, commuter e-bikes, cargo e-bikes, electric tricycles, bike accessories, replacement parts, batteries, and rider support equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law LEDCOR INDUSTRIES: Manzini Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Kirtus Manzini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ledcor Industries (USA) Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03340-RBM-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 1, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada law. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a Workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to perform their job duties, prior to the start of their shifts. Likewise, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to change out of their safety gear and protective clothing "off the clock" following the end of their shifts. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for this time before and after their shifts. The Defendant's pre/post shift off-the-clock policy violates the FLSA and Nevada law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of wages, including overtime wages, for all hours worked. Likewise, the Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates Nevada Law by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of timely payment of earned wages for all hours worked upon termination of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its Ledcor Mine from November 201S to December 2024. Ledcor operates numerous mines located in Nevada, California, and Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cecilia N. Brennan, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 200 (#9) San Diego, CA 92101 Phone/Fax: (619) 717-6410 Email: cbrennan@hkm.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Phone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com LIME ROCK: Suit Seeks Recovery of Interest on Delayed Oil Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Chastain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc., Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P., LRR IV Operating, Inc., Lime Rock Resources III-A, L.P., and LRR III Operating, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00167-DES (E.D. OKla., May 29, 2026) is a class action concerning Defendants' willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production to those legally entitled thereto. Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act requires holders of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas production to pay interest on proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production or some portion of such proceeds that are not paid prior to the end of the applicable time periods provided. The PRSA imposes automatic interest on late payments. Compliance with the PRSA is not optional, and the statute contains no demand requirement before an owner is entitled to statutory interest. According to the complaint, the Defendants know they are bound by statute to pay interest on late payments but have consistently ignored these obligations and deliberately violated Oklahoma law. The Defendants do not automatically pay the interest they owe on untimely payments of O&G Proceeds. Instead, upon information and belief, they have a policy of only paying statutory interest when those legally entitled thereto demand it, despite the fact that no such demand requirement exists, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages for himself and all similarly situated owners who received untimely payments from Defendants for which Defendants did not pay the interest required by the PRSA. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc. acquires, operates, and produces lower-risk oil and gas properties. The Company offers acquisition of a diverse group of oil and gas properties to provide its private investors with long-term returns. Lime Rock serves customers in the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com - and - Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES One Leadership Square, Suite 1310 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com LITHIA MOTORS: Arbitration Denial in Olsaba Suit Affirmed on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARCO OLSABA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B348587 (Cal. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's denial of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. In this wage-and-hour putative class action, the trial court denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration because the parties' arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Van Nuys-T, Inc. (doing business as Keyes Toyota), a subsidiary of Lithia Motors, Inc. (collectively Defendants) employed Plaintiff Olsaba beginning in June 2023 through approximately October 2023. The Defendants' offer of employment dated June 22, 2023 provided: "This offer of employment is contingent upon your passing all hiring processes and presenting proof of eligibility to work in the U.S. when you report to work. This offer will remain open for 7 days. We may revoke this offer at any time before your start date if business or staffing needs change. We are an at-will employer." As the initial step in the hiring process, the Defendants sent plaintiff an arbitration agreement. They acknowledge that the Plaintiff signed the Arbitration Agreement 40 minutes after opening it. Also, in connection with his hiring, the Plaintiff signed an "At-Will Employment Agreement." In November 2024, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Defendants alleging causes of action for (1) recovery of unpaid minimum wages; (2) recovery of unpaid overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages due; (7) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (8) unfair competition. The Plaintiff defined the class as "all current and former non-exempt employees that worked in California either directly or via a staffing agency for any one or more of the following Lithia-owned dealerships: Hyundai of Mission Hills, Keyes Lexus of Valencia, Audi VanNuys (formerly Keyes Audi), Keyes Hyundai of Van Nuys, Keyes Lexus, Keyes European, Keyes Toyota, and/or Audi Valencia (prior to its sale in June 2021) — at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint." The Defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on the Arbitration Agreement. While they acknowledged the agreement was minimally procedurally unconscionable, they argued it was not substantively unconscionable. The Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that Rule 68 was not linked in the agreement and was used to conceal a problematic provision. He further contended that the agreement was both highly procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court found that the Plaintiff signed an Arbitration Agreement covering his claims but held the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion drafted by the Defendants, the Plaintiff had to accept it to continue his application, and he had limited opportunity to review it. The court also found the agreement substantially substantively unconscionable due to restrictions on discovery, a mandatory offer-of-compromise provision, an improper waiver affecting representative PAGA claims, and a 60-day fee-payment period that conflicted with statutory 30-day deadlines. Concluding that the agreement was permeated with unconscionability, the court held the offending provisions could not be severed and refused to enforce the agreement. The Defendants timely appealed. On appeal, the parties dispute the level of procedural unconscionability, the number of substantively unconscionable provisions, and whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed from the agreement. Following the guidance of the Supreme Court's decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 478 (Ramirez), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration. It rejected the Defendants' characterization of the arbitration agreement as reflecting only a low level of procedural unconscionability because that characterization is inconsistent with the evidence viewed in the light favorable to the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals concluded that the provisions in the arbitration agreement containing a PAGA waiver and cost shifting upon the failure to accept an offer of compromise are unconscionable, as is the provision in the related employment agreement requiring the employee to be bound by future amendments to "all terms and conditions of my employment" as that provision is applied to the arbitration agreement. It, however, disagreed with the trial court that the discovery provisions in the arbitration agreement are substantively unconscionable. Finally, applying the analysis in Ramirez, the Second District concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the unconscionable provisions instead of denying the motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/IUBFCUKcw. Saber Law Group, Shirley C. Wang -- swang@saberlaw.com -- Sara G. Noel -- snoel@saberlaw.com -- Andrew J. Mailhot -- amailhot@saberlaw.com -- and Caleb J. Krywenko -- ckrywenko @saberlaw.com -- for Defendants and Appellants. Crosner Legal, Raymond Wendell -- rwendell@crosnerlegal.com -- and Brandon Brouillette -- bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. LOS ANGELES, CA: Guzambak Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guzambak, LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and as a taxpayer under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, acting by and through the LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER; LOS ANGELES BOARD OF WATER AND POWER COMMISSIONERS; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17366 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for unlawfully collected, retained, offset, credited against, or applied to prior-tenant charges. When Guzambak sought LADWP service for that property effective October 23, 2024, LADWP asserted that the prior tenant, Erica Price, owed an outstanding LADWP balance and demanded, posted, assessed, collected, retained, or attempted to collect that prior-tenant balance from Guzambak or on Guzambak's account. Guzambak did not live at the residence during the period when the prior tenant's charges accrued, did not receive the service that generated those charges, did not contract to pay the prior tenant's LADWP account, and did not voluntarily agree to assume the prior tenant's debt. This action seeks targeted statutory compliance remedies: a declaration of the parties' rights and duties under Public Utilities Code section 10009.6(b); a writ of mandate compelling LADWP and the City to comply with that statute; injunctive relief prohibiting future violations; mandatory-duty relief under Government Code section 815.6; refunds, credits, account reversals, and restitution for amounts unlawfully collected, retained, offset, credited against, or applied to prior-tenant charges; taxpayer relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a; and reasonable attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Guzambak owns residential property located in Winnetka, California. City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP"), owns and operates a municipal residential water and electric utility. California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. David Cienfuegos, Esq. Mona Deldar, Esq. Jason Pajounia, Esq. DELDAR LEGAL PC 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 740 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (844) 335-3271 Email: litigation@deldar.com dcienfuegos@deldar.com mdeldar@deldar.com jpajounia@deldar.com LUXAPOLISH LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LUXAPOLISH LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06436 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.luxapolish.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates Website offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States, including the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LUXURBAN HOTELS: $3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of publicly traded common stock and/or 13% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of LuxUrban Hotels Inc. (OTCMKT: LUXHQ): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock and/or 13% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock of LuxUrban Hotels Inc. ("LuxUrban") between May 9, 2023 and August 20, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Brian Ferdinand and Shanoop Kothari (the "Individual Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the claims against the Individual Defendants and LuxUrban (together, "Defendants") in the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $3,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer either in person or remotely, at the Court's discretion, on September 8, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1305 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 26, 2026; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another written notice. Information about the hearing will be posted at www.strategicclaims.net/LuxUrban. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting www.strategicclaims.net/LuxUrban or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: LuxUrban Hotels Inc. Securities Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim or for copies of the Notice and Claim Form, may also be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Jonathan D. Park, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 www.pomlaw.com (212) 661-1100 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 10, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than August 18, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than August 18, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 31, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LYRICAL LEMONADE: Ochoa Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- Anthony Ochoa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyrical Lemonade, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; COLE BENNETT, an individual; and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case No. 2:26-cv-05868 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking unpaid wages, damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement of costs and such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a crew member on a motion picture production identified on his wage statements as "Sorry" (the "Production"). The Plaintiff worked for at least 28.5 hours, but was never paid any premium wages for missed rest periods. No premium rest break wages were paid at all to any worker, despite the fact that on no day of more than four hours work, neither the Plaintiff nor any other member of the production crew was provided any rest breaks, at all. The Plaintiff was entitled to at least two uninterrupted rest breaks of at least ten minutes, each day. These were not provided. Plaintiff should have been paid a premium Rest Break wage for their day of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants on the Production from June 4, 2023 to June 10, 2023. Lyrical Lemonade is "a multi media company specializing in music videos, live events, exclusive content, merchandise and plenty more."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 323.962.3777 Fax: 323.962.3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com MARIN COUNTY: Demurrer Dismissal Affirmed in Hiller Water Rate Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TOVE HILLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A171271 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One, affirmed the order of the trial court sustaining the District's interposed demurrer without leave to amend on the ground Hiller's claims were foreclosed by the final judgment in the District's previously filed validation action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 860 through 870. Hiller filed a complaint and petition for writ of mandate challenging increased water rates adopted by the District. On May 16, 2023, the District's Board of Directors enacted Ordinance No. 464, setting water service rates effective from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2027. The ordinance stated that the District had complied with Proposition 218's procedural and substantive requirements, including a cost-of-service study, public notice, and a public hearing, and it became effective 30 days after adoption. The following month, the District filed a validation action seeking judicial confirmation of Ordinance No. 464. The complaint detailed the work of an independent rate consultant, who analyzed the District's financial data, water usage patterns, revenue needs, and projected costs to develop cost-based rates. Using the widely accepted 'base/extra capacity' methodology, the consultant concluded that the rate increases fairly allocated costs among users based on their proportional use of the system. The complaint further alleged that the District complied with Proposition 218 by providing notice at least 45 days before adoption of the ordinance, informing customers of the proposed rates, the applicable 120-day limitations period, and where supporting materials could be reviewed. It also noted that the District discussed the proposed rates at numerous public meetings and workshops before mailing the notices. At a public hearing in May 2023, the District considered the consultant's study, received public input, and reviewed written protests. Although 599 valid protests were submitted, that number fell well short of the majority protest threshold, and the District adopted the ordinance. The validation action sought a declaration that the ordinance was valid and enacted in compliance with applicable law. In July 2023, the trial court issued a summons and ordered service by publication in the Marin Independent Journal. The District published the summons for three consecutive weeks, notifying all interested persons that it had filed an action to validate the rate ordinance and warning that any challenge had to be filed within the statutory response period or a default could be entered. No interested party filed a response by the deadline. The trial court therefore entered a default against all interested persons on August 28, 2023. The District subsequently sought a default judgment, which the court granted on October 9, 2023, validating the rate ordinance. In September 2023, while the validation action was pending, Hiller filed a class action and petition for writ of mandate challenging the District's water rates. She sought refunds of charges allegedly exceeding the proportional cost of service, along with declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the District to comply with Proposition 218's cost-of-service requirements and restricting the use of rate revenues for other programs without voter approval. Hiller did not serve the District until late November 2023, after the court had already entered final judgment in the District's validation action. The District demurred, arguing that Hiller's claims were barred by the prior validation judgment and that any challenge to the water rates had to be brought through a reverse validation action. After Hiller amended her complaint to emphasize alleged violations of Proposition 218 and constitutional due process and takings protections, the District again demurred. Hiller argued that applying the validation statutes conflicted with Proposition 218 and that the District's failure to provide her personal notice of the validation action violated due process. The trial court rejected those arguments, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and held that the validation judgment barred Hiller's challenge to the rate ordinance, including her constitutional claims. On appeal, Hiller argued that: (1) the District's use of the validation statutes to shield its water rates from further judicial review conflicts with the purposes of Proposition 218; (2) her due process rights were violated because she and her counsel did not receive personal notice of the validation action; and (3) Government Code section 53759 does not bar her mandamus claims, even when they raise constitutional challenges to water rates. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling sustaining the District's demurrer. It held that the validity of the water rates under Proposition 218 was already resolved in the District's validation action, and Hiller's failure to participate in or timely challenge that proceeding barred her claims. The Court rejected Hiller's argument that the validation statutes and Government Code section 53759 deprived her of a "clear and certain" remedy, explaining she could have brought a reverse validation action or appeared in the District's validation case but did neither. It also found no merit in her claim that her mandamus action fell outside section 53759, noting the statute’s purpose is to impose a short limitations period for challenges to water rate increases to ensure certainty in public revenue systems. Finally, the Court rejected her due process argument regarding notice, holding that the trial court had discretion over the method of notice under the validation statutes and that, in any event, Hiller did not act within the required time frame even under the notice procedures used. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/ouszmmr MDL 3180: Dupixent Product Litigation Consolidated to D. N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case "In re: Dupixent (DUPILUMAB) Products Liability Litigation," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers fifteen actions and seven potential tag-along actions pending across twelve districts, all to District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendants Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Genzyme Corporation support centralization in the Southern District of New York, or, alternatively, in the Southern District of Florida or the Middle District of Florida. Most plaintiffs used the prescription biologic medication Dupixent, which is commonly prescribed to treat atopic dermatitis, 1 and were later diagnosed with Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL). Other plaintiffs are the spouses or survivors of Dupixent users who were diagnosed with CTCL. Plaintiffs each allege that Dupixent caused them, their spouse, or the decedent to develop CTCL (or that Dupixent accelerated a preexisting CTCL). The parties agree that plaintiffs' allegations will raise common questions of fact, such as whether the scientific literature shows a causal link between Dupixent use and CTCL development, if such a link exists, when the defendants should have learned about it and whether defendants provided adequate warnings about Dupixent's risks. Movants agree that this MDL should not include claims related to B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or other diseases that are not T-cell lymphomas. But they oppose limiting the MDL's scope to CTCL because they allege the scientific literature links Dupixent use to non-cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, including peripheral T-cell lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Movants argue that the T-cell lymphoma subtypes are sufficiently similar that expert testimony and likely will overlap. While the complaints in some of the actions cite case reports or scientific literature documenting angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and peripheral T-cell lymphoma following Dupixent use, none of the plaintiffs in the actions allege that they have or had a T-cell lymphoma other than CTCL or one of its subtypes. This can be addressed the future expansion of the MDL beyond cases involving CTCL through the conditional transfer process. The District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Sanofi's principal place of business is in the District of New Jersey, and Regeneron, which is headquartered in nearby Tarrytown, New York, has corporate offices in the District of New Jersey. Relevant witnesses and evidence are thus likely to be in or near the District of New Jersey, which is also easily accessible for the parties and witnesses in this nationwide litigation. A full-text copy of the court's June 4, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wnmc7d5 MDL 3181: Spinal Cord Product Suits Consolidated to C. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers ten actions naming defendants Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. pending in the U.S. District Courts of the Central District of California, Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Mississippi, Southern District of Mississippi and four actions naming defendant Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) pending in the Northern District of Illinois, all to the Central District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, and Medtronic oppose centralization. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered injuries arising from the implantation and use of an spinal cord stimulator (SCS) manufactured by Boston Scientific or Abbott. They allege that the FDA granted Premarket Approval (PMA) of each manufacturer's SCS based on published literature related to similar systems manufactured by other companies. Neither manufacturer reportedly offered independent clinical data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of their devices. Plaintiffs allege that, since the original PMAs were approved, Abbott and Boston Scientific have introduced numerous new SCS devices incorporating significant modifications under supplements to their original PMAs. They allege the manufacturers have failed to comply with regulatory requirements and deprived physicians, patients, and the FDA of the complete information necessary to evaluate the true risks associated with these devices. Each plaintiff alleges he or she was implanted with an SCS and suffered injury, including unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction, and neurological injuries. Certain plaintiffs naming the FDA as a defendant further contend that the FDA failed to meaningfully review Boston Scientific's and Abbott's PMAs and PMA supplements. Other actions with similar allegations name Nevro and Medtronic. In opposing centralization, the manufacturer defendants argue that plaintiffs' allegations regarding the PMA and PMA supplement process are an attempt to avoid a preemption defense, which Boston Scientific contends is likely to fail, making centralization unnecessary. They further argue that most actions involving Boston Scientific already are being coordinated in the Central District of California, and those filed outside that district can be informally coordinated. Finally, they argue that each action involves unique factual issues relating to the different devices at issue and the different injuries alleged by plaintiffs. Centralization would avoid inconsistent rulings and streamline briefing, providing efficiency for the parties and the courts. There are now 23 cases pending against Boston Scientific in nine districts. Given the complexity of these devices and claims and the likelihood of significant overlap in motions practice, we find centralization to be the most efficient path for these cases. Opponents of centralization argue that there is no common defect alleged, and the plaintiffs' injuries vary too much to justify centralization. Proponents of centralization disagree and, in briefing, variously argued that plaintiffs allege that the SCS devices failed mechanically and therapeutically and allege common groupings of injuries. The panel argued that products liability actions must allege identical injuries to warrant centralization given the overlap in allegations concerning the PMA approval process, among other factual questions about the performance of these Boston Scientific products. Movants assert that there are industry-wide problems with spinal cord stimulators that justify an MDL including cases against, at a minimum, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro. Proponents of an industry-wide MDL have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that creating an MDL with such a wide scope is appropriate here. While plaintiffs allege similar conduct on the part of each manufacturer, they do not allege the manufacturers acted in concert. Each manufacturer has its own line of SCS devices, each of which have their own regulatory histories. Discovery will not overlap concerning each manufacturer's conduct. A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/32r5crfe MDL 3185: Data Breach Litigation Transferred to E.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers nineteen actions pending in three districts, all to Eastern District of Missouri, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge John A. Ross for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All plaintiffs support centralization, but they disagree as to the proposed transferee forum. The actions share questions of fact arising from allegations that TriZetto/Cognizant failed to take adequate measures to prevent and address the consequences of a cyberattack on its network that began in November 2024 and was discovered in October 2025. This attack is alleged to have exposed the private information of more than 3.4 million individuals. Plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals, and assert similar claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws. In opposing centralization, defendants argue that movants have not identified common factual questions, rather than common legal questions, and that transfer or informal coordination are preferrable to Section 1407 centralization. The panel contends that plaintiffs favoring centralization have identified several common factual questions, including: the nature, scope, timing, and cause of the data breach; defendants' data security policies and practices before the breach; when TriZetto first detected the vulnerabilities in its system; defendants' response to the breach; the adequacy and timing of notice to affected entities and individuals; and the effects of the attack on individuals whose private information was compromised. Discovery regarding these overlapping issues is likely to be complex and time-consuming. Indeed, defendants have not opposed efforts to consolidate these actions where there are multiple actions pending in a single district. Centralization should avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wkzfz7bk MDL 3186: JPML Denies Bid to Centralize 8 Actions ------------------------------------------------- In patent liability litigation, "In re: Disruptor Trigger Mechanism Patent Litigation," Acting Chairperson Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by plaintiff in eight of the ten actions to centralize their cases. These are ten actions pending in eight districts. Movants make or sell a forced reset trigger (FRT) device called the "Partisan Disruptor." Plaintiffs allege in each action that this infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,514,223, 11,724,003, 12,036,336 and 12,274,807. The panel concluded that centralization is not necessary as this motion follows closely on a previous decision in another MDL No. 3176 centralizing several of plaintiffs' actions asserting their patents against various FRT devices. Movants argue that a separate MDL for the Disruptor actions will save the transferee judge in MDL No. 3176 from having to learn about multiple technologies and patents, construe claims from unrelated patents, and manage non-overlapping discovery. However, the panel already declined to limit the scope of MDL No. 3176 at the outset and that narrowing the litigation based on accused infringing products could undesirably lead to multiple courts resolving claim construction and patent validity disputes for the same patent. The actions at issue are also uniquely intertwined with the other actions centralized in MDL No. 3176 because of a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice which requires the plaintiffs to seek injunctions against infringers of their FRT patents. In the actions where they have already filed briefs requesting preliminary injunctions, plaintiffs have argued that enjoining alleged infringers of their patents serves the public interest. Plaintiffs are likely to make the same arguments in all their other actions. The existing MDL No. 3176 should suffice to ensure consistent injunction decisions. A full-text copy of the court's June 4, 2026 Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3186-Order_Denying_Transfer-5-26.pdf MDL 3186: JPML Won't Centralize 7 Actions ----------------------------------------- In case product liability litigation, "In re: Dish Wireless LLC Communication Towers Contract Litigation," Acting Chairperson Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move by Dish to centralize seven actions pending in five districts. These are ten actions pending in eight districts. All responding plaintiffs oppose centralization. These actions arise from sales in 2025 by EchoStar, DISH’s parent company, of spectrum licenses that had been intended for use in creating a nationwide wireless network. DISH subsequently declared force majeure with respect to various contracts with owners and operators of communications towers and providers of network equipment and services. While there are some common factual questions presented by this litigation, particularly with respect to the question of whether EchoStar’s sale of its spectrum assets was compelled by the Federal Communications Commission, the limited factual overlap among these actions is overshadowed by numerous casespecific factual and legal questions. These actions involve different contracts, with different terms, between different counterparties, which are subject to different state laws and were entered into at different times (ranging from 2020 to 2025), and address different services and goods (ranging from space on cellular towers to space in smaller equipment cages to fiber connectivity to network and installation services). The amounts at issue similarly range from the low six-figures to the billions. The contracts have differing terms with respect to DISH’s anticipated defenses of frustration of purpose, impossibility, and force majeure. Some contracts, for instance, address whether certain actions by the FCC can constitute a force majeure. The bulk of any discovery is likely to focus on case-specific issues, such as the negotiations between the parties to each contract. Any centralized proceeding also would be complicated by numerous confidentiality issues. Several of the complaints in this litigation are subject to protective orders restricting access to alleged competitively sensitive information contained in the contracts and case documents that cite those contracts. Centralization of these actions involving competitors likely will result in unnecessary complexity and delay. A full-text copy of the court's June 4, 2026 Order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3182-Order_Denying_Transfer-5-26.pdf MDL 3187: Fertilizer Antitrust Litigation Transferred to Kansas --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) Fertilizer Antitrust Litigation, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two actions pending in Northern District of Illinois and one each from District of Colorado, District of Kansas and the Western District of Missouri, all to District of Kansas, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Eric F. Melgren for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding parties support centralization, but they disagree as to the proposed transferee forum. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that defendants conspired to artificially reduce or eliminate competition and raise or fix prices with respect to the production, sale, marketing, and distribution of NPK fertilizers sold in the United States. The complaints are substantially similar and name the same core group of defendants. Further, the actions are brought on behalf of overlapping putative nationwide and multistate classes of direct and indirect purchasers of NPK fertilizers. Hence, centralization in the District of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Eight of the 34 related actions in this docket are pending in said district and has a substantial connection to this litigation, as at least two of the defendants have their principal place of business there and most of the other defendants operate in the state, which has a significant agriculture industry. It also presents a geographically central forum for this nationwide litigation, and it has the resources to efficiently manage this litigation. A full-text copy of the court's June 9, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/46e35j7z MDL No. 3108: Data Breach Litigation Transferred to Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the U.S. District of Central District of California and the District of South Carolina, all to the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Donovan W. Frank for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the move while defendants from Optum, Inc. oppose the motions. All actions on the motion are brought on behalf of persons whose personally identifiable information and protected health information were compromised in a cyberattack on the systems of defendants Change Healthcare, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare, Inc., and Optum, Inc. announced February 21, 2024. Optum allegedly failed to take adequate measures to prevent and address the consequences of the cyberattack on its network, which exposed the private information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers to use its digital platform to access insurance information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and receive payment for services provided to patients. Plaintiffs Path MD is a healthcare providers that allege their ability to submit insurance claims and receive payment for services was disrupted by the Change Healthcare cyberattack and the shutdown of defendant Optum's digital platforms. Path also states that they accepted a Temporary Funding Assistance Program (TFAP) loan established by Change Healthcare from Optum and that Optum has unfairly and unreasonably attempted to collect payment on the loan. Plaintiff Benefit Source, Inc. is a provider of claim processing and payment services for healthcare providers. Like the Path, it alleges that, following the cyberattack and the shutdown of Optum's platforms, it lost access to its services. As a result, it states, it was forced to incur expenses and hire additional staff to continue operations and was unable to collect payments from healthcare providers and vendors. Both seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals and healthcare providers, and assert virtually identical claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract or implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws. Discovery in all actions will focus on how Change Healthcare's system was breached, what security measures Change Healthcare had in place, and the measures taken after the data breach was discovered to notify those impacted and to restore healthcare providers' access to insurance and other information stored in the Change Healthcare platform. Plaintiffs oppose transfer, arguing that its action will focus primarily on Change's failure to perform contracted-for services, which allegedly began months before the data breach occurred. It contends that its action will turn primarily on case-specific issues such as the terms of its individual contract and the extent of its damages. Plaintiff maintains that transfer would be inefficient and inconvenient because of non-overlapping discovery and unique legal claims. But since the cyberattack is prominently featured in its complaint and its damage claim is based on defendant's "failure to process the Plaintiff's payment claims when the cyberattack occurred," and claims relating to Change's demands for repayment of its TFAP loan overlap with similar claims by numerous MDL plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the court's June 3, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/22653vvn META PLATFORMS: Faces Hobbs Suit Over Copyright Infringement ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFF HOBBS; ALFRED DOUGLAS STONE; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; MARK ZUCKERBERG; GUILLAUME LAMPLE; JOELLE PINEAU; JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04314 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Copyright Act. The complaint is brought against the Defendants for copyright infringement based on (1) Defendants' pirating of Plaintiffs' and tens of millions of other authors' copyrighted books and the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works through torrenting on shadow websites on the internet rather than lawfully licensing them as others did; and, (2) through Meta's sourcing of content for, and development and training of, Meta's generative artificial intelligence platform called "Llama," using Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and for removal of copyright management information. This complaint further alleges the reproduction of copyrighted works on a monumental and unprecedented scale. To conceal its theft and copyright infringement, Meta took action to cover up its steps in downloading the material, often writing special code to conceal its illicit activities. As a result of its actions, Meta downloaded and stole more than tens of millions of copyrighted works across thousands of genres and disciplines. Meta infringed the copyrights of millions of documents, books and other published material. Meta's copyright infringement may constitute the largest infringement -- literary piracy -- in history, alleges the suit. As a result of its theft, Meta deprived Plaintiff, and the putative Class of authors and creators of this vast amount of work, of compensation, of licensing opportunities, royalties and other forms of remuneration in the sale of their published work and vastly diluted the market for plaintiffs and the Class' works, asserts the complaint. Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Stone, Esq. STONE & MAGNANINI, LLP 400 Connell Drive, Suite 6200 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 Telephone: (973) 218-1111 E-mail: dstone@smcomplex.com MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN: Time Designate Expert Witness Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as O.S. and F.C. v. Mid America Physician Services, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00685 (W.D. Mo., Aug. 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Roseann A Ketchmark entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to designate Plaintiff Expert Witnesses on class certification issues. The Plaintiff's new deadline to designate expert witnesses on class certification issues is July 16, 2026. All other deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order, remain the same. The nature of suit states diversity-other contract Mid America is a physician-owned obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) network. [CC] MILAN LASER: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Futrell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMELA FUTRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILAN LASER CORPORATE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02040-GLR (D. Md., May 22, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who have accessed Defendant's website, milanlaser.com and booked a free consult or appointment for laser hair removal services. According to the complaint, laser hair removal services are inherently sensitive due to the personal nature of the services provides. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, the Defendant discloses information provided by consumers on the website to undisclosed third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google, LLC (collectively, the "Third Parties"). The Defendant chose to implement tracking technologies from Meta and Google on its website, which functioned to intercept and disclose private user interactions on the website to Meta, in real time, including confidential appointment-booking details and personally identifiable information from Plaintiff and Class Members. Through the acts alleged herein, the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, and was unjustly enriched by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent. Milan Laser Corporate LLC provides laser fair removal services to consumers through the Website. To book a free consult or appointment on the Website, users must share personally identifying information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Risch, Esq. MANN & RISCH, LLC 101 E. Chesapeake Ave., Ste. 403 Towson, MD 21286 Telephone: (410) 929-5145 Facsimile: (410) 307-1007 E-mail: nate@mannrisch.com - and - Alec Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com MILLWORK ENTERPRISES: Catahho Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUNO HENRIQUE DE FREITAS CATAHHO, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLWORK ENTERPRISES LLC, a Florida Corporation, and LIA M. SCHERBA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80629 (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and/or refused to compensate Plaintiff for work in excess of 40 hours at rates no less than one and one-half times the regular rates for which he was employed, contrary to the provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff subsequently suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated by Defendants in retaliation for his lawful complaints, says the suit. Plaintiff Catahho was hired as a carpenter/laborer at Millwork Enterprises, and was employed by Defendants intermittently for approximately 14 months between December 2022, and August 21, 2024. Millwork Enterprises LLC, doing business as JL Woodwork, is a Florida limited liability company authorized to conduct business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2250 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 704-3172 Facsimile: (305) 722-7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Toenjes Balks at Fertilizer Price-fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- RANDY TOENJES, Plaintiff v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06278 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen fertilizers (the producers are CF Industries, Nutrien, Koch, and Yara, together "Nitrogen Defendants"), phosphorus fertilizers (the producers are Nutrien and Mosaic, together "Phosphorus Defendants"), and potassium (potash) fertilizers (the producers are Nutrien and Mosaic, and together with Canpotex, the "Potash Defendants") -- collectively referred to as "NPK Fertilizers" -- from at least as early as January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. Beginning in or around 2021, NPK Fertilizer prices departed from historical norms and began increasing at unprecedented rates. NPK Fertilizer prices spiked dramatically throughout 2021 and 2022 and remained elevated well after the supply shocks Defendants claimed were responsible subsided. These inflated prices are a result of Defendants' conspiracies, says the suit. The Defendants' conspiracies have been to the detriment of Plaintiff and members of the Class and have caused them to pay supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizers during the Class Period. The Plaintiff brings this class action Complaint against Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and violations of common law. Plaintiff Toenjes purchased one or more NPK Fertilizers directly from one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period. By paying artificially inflated prices for NPK Fertilizers, the Plaintiff suffered antitrust injury as a direct result of the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint. The Mosaic Company is a publicly traded company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. The Mosaic Company was formed in October 2004 by a merger between IMC Global and Cargill's crop nutrition division, immediately creating one of the world's largest producers of fertilizers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Theodore Salem-Mackall, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com tsalemmackall@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 6645 South Cherry Way Centennial, CO 80121 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com MOTION PT MANAGEMENT: Ireland Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Ireland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOTION PT MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a MOTION PT GROUP, Case No. 1:26-cv-03312 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026), is brought to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of its patients and to recover statutory and equitable damages for Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage, and use of putative class members' PHI in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). In pursuit of profit and without regard for its patients' medical privacy, Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with Google, LLC, a third party, to intercept its patients' communications as they seek physical therapy services on the Website. This is possible because Defendant has surreptitiously installed complex computer code on the Website which serves to track and disclose patient activity, in real time, to Google. Confidentiality is paramount to the medical industry. Despite its legal and ethical duties to protect patient information, Defendant undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal medical information of individuals seeking physical therapy treatment and breached its patients' trust—violating federal and state law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, and contrary to Defendant's duty as a hearing care provider, Defendant discloses its patients' protected health information to third parties, including Google, for targeted advertising purposes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff booked an appointment for physical therapy through the Website in September 2024. The Defendant operates a large-scale network of physical therapy clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Fax: (305) 676-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com NATALS INC: Heath Sues Over False Advertising on Vitamin Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Heath and Chelsea Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATALS, INC. d/b/a RITUAL, Case No. 3:26-cv-05251 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2026), is brought against for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), as a result of cheating customers by selling multivitamins that promise to provide "Essential" nutrition but fail to contain a number of vitamins that are essential. The Defendant markets its product line under the "Essential" name including the Essential for Women Multivitamin 18+, Essential for Women Multivitamin 50+, Essential for Men Multivitamin 18+, and Essential for Men Multivitamin 50+ (collectively, the "Essential Multivitamins" or "Products") while omitting numerous vitamins that the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") classify as essential. The newly released Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 published January 7, 2026 by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture further reinforce the importance of these essential vitamins, recommending that Americans prioritize "nutrient dense foods" and noting that many Americans fail to obtain adequate levels of key vitamins and minerals from their diets. Despite this clear and consistent guidance from the NIH, FDA, and the Dietary Guidelines regarding the 13 Essential Vitamins, each of the Essential Multivitamins fails to contain multiple essential vitamins. And yet, the Products are voluntarily labeled as being "Essential" Multivitamins. Reasonable consumers would expect the Products to provide all 13 vitamins the NIH and FDA deem to be "essential." Even worse, the Products' labeling fails to expressly state that the Products do not provide all essential vitamins and nutrients or otherwise disclose that the Products are missing numerous essential vitamins, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the Ritual Essential Multivitamins. The Defendant is engaged in the formulation, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, marketing, labeling, and/or sale of the Essential Multivitamins throughout California and the entire United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 305 Broadway, Suite 713 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (646) 964-9604 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: fklorczyk@kamberlaw.com NATIONAL PUBLIC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, St. Mary Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE ST. MARY, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC., a District of Columbia non-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06005 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on its Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, the complaint asserts. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes. Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of Defendant's conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff STEPHANIE ST. MARY is a California citizen residing in Los Angeles County, California, and was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including on May 14, 2026. Defendant NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC. is a District of Columbia non-profit corporation that owns, operates, and controls the Website www.npr.org an online news platform through which NPR publishes news reporting, articles, audio, video, and editorial coverage of national and international news, politics, business, health, science, sports, arts, culture, and other topics for readers and listeners nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment Rulings Upheld in Bloom Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Francesca Bloom, etc., appellant-respondent, v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, etc., respondent-appellant, Case No. 2021-06802, Index No. 10147/18 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the order of Judge Craig Stephen Brown of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 24, 2021. In this putative class action involving claims under Real Property Law Section 274-a and General Business Law Section 349, both sides appealed the order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 24, 2021. The trial court granted the Defendant summary judgment dismissing the Section 349 deceptive practices claim and decertified Class Two, while also denying the Plaintiff's request for summary judgment on that claim. At the same time, it denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Section 274-a claim and to decertify Class One, and granted the Plaintiff summary judgment on the Section 274-a claim. In 2018, the Plaintiff, a homeowner with a mortgage, brought a putative class action against her mortgage servicer. She alleged that the Defendant unlawfully charged borrowers a fee for providing mortgage payoff statements by fax, violating Real Property Law Section 274-a and General Business Law Section 349. On August 27, 2019, the Supreme Court granted class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9 and certified two classes of plaintiffs. After discovery, the Defendant moved for summary judgment and to decertify both classes, while the Plaintiff sought summary judgment in her favor. The Supreme Court dismissed the General Business Law Section 349 claim and decertified Class Two, but allowed the Real Property Law Section 274-a claim to proceed and granted the Plaintiff summary judgment on that claim, while leaving Class One certified. Both sides appealed. The Appellate Division held that the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on her Real Property Law Section 274-a claim because she showed that the Defendant charged borrowers an unlawful fee for providing a first mortgage payoff statement by fax. The Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response. The Court further found that charging a "fax fee" for expedited delivery of a payoff statement was not permitted under the law, and the Defendant's argument that borrowers consented to the fee was not a valid defense. However, the Appellate Division found that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the General Business Law Section 349 claim. That claim was based on an alleged violation of a regulation, 3 NYCRR 419.4(d), which restricts certain fees for mortgage payoff statements. The Defendant showed that there is no private right of action to enforce that regulation and that the Plaintiff's GBL Section 349 claim did not allege any independent deceptive conduct apart from the regulatory violation. The Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue in response. Because Class Two was certified based on the alleged violation of that same regulation, the Appellate Division also upheld decertification of that class and said the parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the mixed rulings of the Supreme Court without costs or disbursements. It upheld summary judgment for the Plaintiff on the Real Property Law Section 274-a claim and agreed that Class One remained properly certified, rejecting the Defendant's request to dismiss that claim and decertify the class. At the same time, it affirmed dismissal of the General Business Law Section 349 claim, upheld decertification of Class Two, and rejected the Plaintiff's request for summary judgment on that claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision & Order is available at https://l1nq.com/oevl7zs. Stenger, Diamond & Glass, LLP, Wappingers Falls, NY (Kenneth M. Stenger -- kstenger@sdglaw.com -- and Mary K. Ephraim -- mephraim@stengerglass.com -- of counsel), for appellant-respondent. McGuire Woods LLP, New York, NY (Aleksandra Kaplun -- akaplun@mcguirewoods.com -- Elizabeth Z. Timmermans -- eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com -- and Ryan Y. Park -- rpark@mcguirewoods.com -- of counsel), for respondent-appellant. NAVISTAR INC: Hirschbach Motor Suit Transferred to S.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc.; John Christner Trucking, LLC; Three Diamond Leasing, LLC; GR Equipment Leasing, Inc.; Schuster Company; Schuster Enterprises, Ltd.; AEG Leasing LLC; Schuster Company, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NAVISTAR, INC.; PACCAR INC.; and BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11979 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on May 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00780-RJD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Navistar, Inc. -- https://ir.navistar.com/ -- is a leading American manufacturer of commercial trucks, buses, defense vehicles, and diesel engines.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Andre Townsend Tennille, III, Esq. EVANS BOWERS 729 Piedmont Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (770) 814-6653 Fax: (404) 850-6748 - and - Devin Taseff, Esq. Matthew S. Hefflefinger, Esq. CHARTWELL LAW OFFICES, LLP 7707 N. Knoxville Ave., Suite 201-A Peoria, IL 61614 Phone: (309) 225-5560 Fax: (610) 666-7704 Email: dtaseff@chartwelllaw.com mhefflefinger@chartwelllaw.com - and - Gabrielle Diane Gravel, Esq. CHEELEY LAW GROUP LLC 2500 Old Milton Parkway, Suite 200 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (770) 814-7001 - and - Lee Brown, Esq. THE BROWN LAW FIRM 3421 Dartmouth Ave. 3026 Mockingbird Lane, P.O. Box 217 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: (214) 893-8505 - and - Nick Heath Wooten, Esq. NICK WOOTEN LLC 3125 Carlton Road Cumming, GA 30041 Phone: (833) 937-6389 The Respondents are represented by: Adam T. Suroff, Esq. Anthony Christopher Badami, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP 7501 Nall Avenue Prairie Village, KS 66208-4762 Phone: (314) 242-0915 Email: asuroff@smbtrials.com - and - Catherine Anne Rizzoni, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 391-0600 - and - Robin M. Hulshizer, Esq. Lachanda Reid, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: lachanda.reid@lw.com - and - Benjamin Lothson, Esq. Kevin Michael Jakopchek, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 222-8597 Email: blothson@smbtrials.com NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Hernandez-Reyes Sues Over Unprotected Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Hernandez-Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY, INC. d/b/a RXNT, Case No. 1:26-cv-02170-JRR (D. Md., June 2, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "Private Information"--about its customers' current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its customers' current and former patients' Private Information. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a software development company offering a suite of Clinical & Practice Management technology to healthcare providers including "electronic prescribing, electronic health records, patient portal, practice management, medical billing, scheduling, mobile apps."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com NEW YORK, NY: Archer Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE ARCHER, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:26-cv-04426-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring action to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Dkt. No. 16 (Motion to Certify Class) New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MZSgqW at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Archer Sues Over Unlawful Emergency Removal Policy ------------------------------------------------------------ DENISE ARCHER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J.W., a minor, by and through their next friend, JAHLIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J.A., a minor, by and through their next friend, JAHLIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; D.A., a minor, by and through their next friend, JAHLIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; DANIELLE LORIMER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Z.L., a minor, by and through their next friend, JEANNETTE BOCANEGRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Y.L., a minor, by and through their next friend, JEANNETTE BOCANEGRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; X.L., a minor, by and through their next friend, JEANNETTE BOCANEGRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; W.L., a minor, by and through their next friend, JEANNETTE BOCANEGRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; K.L., a minor, by and through their next friend, JEANNETTE BOCANEGRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4426 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violations of the U.S. Fourth Amendment due to the unlawful Emergency Removal Policy of the New York City's Administration for Children's Services. ACS is an agency of the City that is authorized to conduct child removals under limited circumstances. Before ACS can remove a child from their parents, the law ordinarily requires the agency to demonstrate to a judge that the child faces an imminent risk of harm that necessitates removal. The basic due process principles are designed to promote fairer and more accurate outcomes, while giving children and parents the opportunity to challenge ACS's allegations and fight for their fundamental right to maintain the integrity of their families. According to the complaint, ACS has adopted a policy, practice, and/or custom -- an unwritten "Emergency Removal Policy" -- whereby ACS staff routinely execute extrajudicial removals in circumstances that do not present a risk to the child's life or health so grave and immediate that there is insufficient time to seek a court order. By removing first and seeking judicial approval only after the family has been torn apart, ACS bypasses fundamental constitutional protections, exploits well documented decision making biases favoring family separation, and inflicts lasting harm on children and families. ACS has implemented and continues to use its unconstitutional Emergency Removal Policy with deliberate indifference to children's and parents' constitutional rights. Further, ACS's Emergency Removal Policy targets and harms Black and Latino families almost exclusively. Over 90% of the children ACS seizes from their families on an emergency basis are Black or Hispanic. Hispanic families in New York City are five times more likely, and Black families ten times more likely, to have their children seized than white families. The overwhelming statistical evidence, itself likely unexplainable but for race, is significantly bolstered by qualitative evidence of endemic race discrimination in ACS's assessment of risk, as well as public reporting and ACS admissions of race discrimination, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Denise Archer is a resident of Bronx, New York. She is the mother of three children: Jasmine, a twelve-year-old girl who is diagnosed with autism and ADHD; Jeremiah, a seven-year-old boy; and Daevon, a five-year-old boy. Ms. Archer is Black. The City is a municipal corporation, incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Shalleck-Klein, Esq. Lewis Bossing, Esq. Eliza J. McDuffie, Esq. Anna Belle Newport, Esq. Amelia Y. Goldberg, Esq. Phoenix Rice-Johnson, Esq. FAMILY JUSTICE LAW CENTER 183 Madison Avenue, #419 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 223-6939 E-mail: dshalleckklein@fjlc.org lbossing@fjlc.org emcduffie@fjlc.org anewport@fjlc.org agoldberg@fjlc.org pricejohnson@fjlc.org - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. Adina Marx-Arpadi, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6464 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org amarxarpadi@ccrjustice.org - and - Christine Gottlieb, Esq. NYU SCHOOL OF LAW FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC/ WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6693 E-mail: gottlieb@mercury.law.nyu.edu - and - Tarek Z. Ismail, Esq. Julia Hernandez, Esq. FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC Main Street Legal Services CUNY School of Law 2 Court Square Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (718) 340-4141 E-mail: tarek.ismail@law.cuny.edu julia.hernandez@law.cuny.edu - and - Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. Thomas White, Esq. Hannah Hoffman, Esq. Michaela Olson, Esq. Hailey Elisabeth Kruger, Esq. Kendrick Baker, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com tom.white@wilmerhale.com hannah.hoffman@wilmerhale.com michaela.olson@wilmerhale.com hailey.kruger@wilmerhale.com kendrick.baker@wilmerhale.com - and - Sean J. Kim, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6142 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: sean.kim@wilmerhale.com NURO POUCHES INC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. NURO POUCHES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04622 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://takeultra.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, 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. NURO POUCHES, INC., operates the Take Ultra online retail store, as well as the Take Ultra interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY: Price Sues Over Unpaid Mandated Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Price, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OAKLAND CITY UNIVERSITY, FOUNDED BY GENERAL BAPTISTS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00118-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., June 1, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS") against the Defendant to address class-wide wage payment violations committed by Defendant and to recover unpaid Federally mandated wages. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, the mandated federal wages for all hours worked. The Defendant failed to compensate employees properly for all time worked, resulting in FLSA violations, as well as violations of Indiana's wage payment laws. The Defendants' systematic violation of federal and state wage laws was willful and in bad faith. Defendant's bad faith and willful violations will be proven in numerous ways. The Plaintiff's class action and FLSA collective action claims based upon Defendant's class-wide failure to pay employees for work will be perfect for class and collective action treatment and will be easy to prove. The Defendant's wage and hour violations will be shown based upon a comparison of their work records and the face of pay stubs Defendant issues to its employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant at its University which is located in Oakland City, Indiana. Oakland City is an educational entity, incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Hunt, Esq. Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste. 168 Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 Email: rob@indianawagelaw.com rfh@indianawagelaw.com ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Faces Steward Suit Over Unlawful Credit Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- TEANNA STEWARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04143-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendant's violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Plaintiff is a consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, residing in Rock Island, Illinois. In 2025, the Plaintiff applied for a loan from Defendant. On April 26, 2025, she received an email from Defendant denying her credit application. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. As a result, Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial, says the suit. OneMain Financial Group, LLC is a financial 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 OZIUM HOLDINGS: Pelaez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OZIUM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-251 (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://ozium.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Pelaez's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Pelaez attempted to explore and purchase products on the Website on April 28, 2026. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that ultimately prevented her from completing her intended transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Pelaez. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Pelaez 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. Pelaez 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 JUDITH PELAEZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant OZIUM HOLDINGS, 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 range of air sanitizing products, including aerosol air sanitizer sprays, odor-eliminating gel, and automotive air freshening solutions for use in cars, homes, and other enclosed spaces.[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 PATRICK LECHLEITNER: Vadapally Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Raja Vadapally, Swetha Bachu, Prudhivi Raj Gundabathula, Rajasekhar Reddy Pasam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Patrick Lechleitner, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Ur Mendoza Jaddou, In her Official Capacity as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Alejandro N. Mayorkas, In his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S Department of Homeland Security; Department of Homeland Security; United States Department of State; United States Department of Education; United States of America, Case No. 2:24-cv-11536 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-11774-MFL-EAS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions for Administrative Procedure Act. Patrick J. Lechleitner is an American former law enforcement officer and government official.[BN] PPG INDUSTRIES: Patton Sues Over Production Operators' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN PATTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PPG INDUSTRIES OHIO, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01275 (N.D. Ohio, June 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all Putative Plaintiffs the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. As a result of the Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant violated and continues to violate the federal and state laws. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Cleveland, Ohio and was employed by the Defendant with the job title of Production Operator from approximately September 2022 through January 2026. PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. is a manufacturer of advanced paint products, coatings, sealants, varnishes, and adhesives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 PRINCE GOURMET DELI: Abdel-Qader Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prince Gourmet Deli & Grill, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Riyad Mohammad Hasan Abdel-Qader on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Prince Gourmet Deli & Grill, Inc. d/b/a Prince Gourmet Deli and d/b/a Prince Gourmet Deli and Grill; Saleh Alshataf; Gamal Alsaidi; Case No. 716360/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (FLSA and NYLL Action). Prince Gourmet Deli & Grill, Inc. is a popular quick-service deli located in Downtown Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com PRODUCTION PLUS: Carter Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as LEAH CARTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRODUCTIONS PLUS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13740, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05716 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class defined as "all individuals currently or formerly employed by Defendant as non-exempt or hourly-paid employees in the State of California at any time between June 28, 2022 and the date of class certification." Productions Plus, Inc. is a full-service talent management and event staffing agency.[BN] Defendant Productions Plus, Inc. is represented by: Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq. Elaina S. Bailey, Esq. HONIGMAN LLP 2290 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 465-7372 Facsimile: (313) 465-7373 E-mail: mdisbrow@honigman.com ebailey@honigman.com PROTAS SPIVOK: Order Denying Arbitration Bid in Jackson Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONTE JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PROTAS, SPIVOK & COLLINS LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 25-1971(4th Cir.), Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision denying Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC (PSC)'s motion to compel. In this case, a law firm seeks the protection of its client's arbitration agreement. The lawsuit arises from a $30,000 loan. WebBank initially extended the loan to Jackson. Then it sold the loan on the secondary market, where Velocity Investments, LLC bought it. Velocity became Jackson's creditor. When Jackson failed to pay his debt, Velocity sued him in Maryland state court to collect it. Velocity was represented in the state court action by PSC, a debt collection law firm. Shortly before trial, Velocity dismissed its own suit with prejudice. Then Jackson initiated this lawsuit against both Velocity and PSC, which he styled as a class action challenging the legality of their "practice of suing on time-barred debt." In response, Velocity and PSC asked the district court to send the case to arbitration. They pointed to the provisions of Jackson's original promissory note with WebBank. Velocity argued it had a right to enforce the arbitration agreement because it was a "subsequent holder" of the note, which brought it within the definition of "you." PSC argued it had the same right because it was "servicing" the note. The district court rejected both arguments. As to Velocity, the court agreed that it was a party to the arbitration agreement but held that it had waived its right to arbitrate by filing suit against Jackson in state court. As to PSC, the court held that it was not a party to the agreement at all. Only PSC appealed. Judge Wilkinson affirmed the district court's decision denying the law firm's motion to compel. He opined that the law firm is not a party to the agreement, and the fact that its client is a party does not transform it into one. Because the firm is not a party to the agreement, it cannot enforce it. PSC's effort to secure the benefit of the arbitration agreement is ultimately unsuccessful because the agreement was drafted to protect only creditors and loan servicers, not lawyers. Although lawyers play an important role in the success of debt instruments, it is a distinct one. The arbitration agreement in this case could have been written in a way that covered PSC, but it plainly was not. If PSC was dissatisfied with the protection the agreement afforded it, it could have declined to represent Velocity. Since it instead accepted the representation, it must also accept the agreement as it is. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/hol4knb. ARGUED: Justin Michael Flint -- flint@ewdc.com -- ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Emanwel Josef Turnbull, THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Channing L. Shor -- shor@ewdc.com -- ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Peter A. Holland -- peter@hollandlawfirm.com -- THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. PUP ABOVE INC: Soto Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Pup Above, Inc. The case is styled as Francisco Soto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A Pup Above, Inc., Case No. 156845/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Disability). A Pup Above -- https://apupabove.com/ -- is a food and beverage company that offers healthy, meat-based, sous-vide-cooked food for adult and senior dogs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com QUANEX BUILDING: Faces Consolidate Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------- Quanex Building Products Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated action captioned "In re Quanex Building Products Corporation Securities Litigation" and a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. A purported shareholder class action lawsuit titled "Zanol v. Quanex Building Products Corporation et al.," Case No. 4:25-cv-04453 was filed on September 19, 2025 in said court. Roofers Pension Fund was appointed lead plaintiff (together with Zanol, Plaintiffs), and the case was re-styled as "In re Quanex Building Products Corporation Securities Litigation." On March 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging certain violations of federal securities laws related to public disclosures made by the company in connection with the 2024 acquisition of Tyman plc. The complaint also challenges 2025 disclosures principally related to the Companys window and door operations in Mexico. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the former. Additionally, on April 24, 2026, a derivative lawsuit titled "Torres v. Wilson, et al.," Case No. 4:26-cv-03321, was filed in the Southern District of Texas against the officers named in the aforementioned complaint and the company's board of directors. The allegations in the Torres lawsuit are based on the same allegations made in the Zanol complaint. Quanex Building Products Corp is a manufacturer of components for the window, door, vinyl fencing, deck and railing markets, serving original equipment manufacturers in the residential housing and commercial construction industries. The company operates globally, providing engineered products and energy-efficient solutions for building and construction applications. RADIO SYSTEMS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, D/B/A PETSAFE BRANDS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06485 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.petsafe.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on September 30, 2025, to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, 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. Radio Systems Corporation operates the website that offers pet products designed to support feeding and daily care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RALPH LAUREN: Rippman Sues Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Rippman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-04619 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's retention of an unjustified windfall profit created by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government of the United States under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). Beginning in roughly February 2025, the United States government imposed tariffs later found to be illegal on imports from numerous countries. These tariffs increased the cost of goods imported into the United States. Many U.S. companies--including Ralph Lauren--responded to these illegal tariffs by increasing their prices, passing the cost of the illegal tariffs on to consumers like Plaintiff. Ralph Lauren collected the costs of the tariffs by raising prices on consumers. Ralph Lauren retained those costs. Ralph Lauren has sought refunds of those same tariff payments from the federal government. If unchecked, Ralph Lauren will reap those tariff payments twice--once in the form of pass-through costs imposed on consumers like Plaintiff, and then again from the federal government through its tariff refund program, including interest. That result is unjust. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of thousands of consumers who purchased goods from Ralph Lauren who paid inflated prices reflecting Ralph Lauren's increased prices based on Ralph Lauren's pass-through of the tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges, together with declaratory and monetary relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased goods from Ralph Lauren that were imported from countries subject to the IEEPA tariffs. Ralph Lauren is a retailer headquartered in New York with a substantial presence in New York and manufactures and sells apparel and related retail products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Michael Tackeff, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com RELIABLE INSURANCE: Gavidia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliable Insurance Services, L.P. The case is styled as Steven Alejandro Hernandez Gavidia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reliable Insurance Services, L.P., Case No. 3:26-cv-03352-AJB-GC (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Reliable Insurance Services -- https://www.scvreliableinsurance.com/ -- provides auto, commercial truck, renters, and homeowners insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Class, Derivative Actions ------------------------------------------------ Rent the Runway, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2026, that it is currently facing a securities suit and a derivative action over its initial public offering (IPO). The shareholder case was dismissed and a motion for reconsideration has been filed. On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO, entitled "Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al.," 22-cv-6935. It alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly materially misleading statements and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading concerning, among other things, the company's growth at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as deemed just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed Delaware Public Employees Retirement System and Denver Employees Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, concerning, among other things, the Company's growth prospects and fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, with the motion fully briefed as of February 23, 2024. On September 25, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the claims based on the company's growth prospects statements but allowing certain other claims to proceed. On October 9, 2024, defendants moved for reconsideration of the September 25, 2024 order and/or for certification under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), which motion was fully submitted as of October 30, 2024. In response to an application filed by defendants on November 19, 2024, on November 20, 2024, the Court issued an order adjourning defendants' deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint sine die. On May 16, 2025, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to extend the time to answer the amended complaint until after the motion for reconsideration is resolved. It also determined that a phased approach to discovery was appropriate so as to permit the exchange of key documents and to promote the preservation of documents and evidence and directed the parties to submit a proposed initial discovery plan, which they did. The court approved the initial discovery plan on June 3, 2025. In addition, on October 18, 2024, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit on its behalf the Eastern District of New York against certain of its officers and directors, and nominally against the Company, entitled "Bandyopadhyay v. Hyman, et al.," 24-cv-7321. The complaint, which is largely predicated on the same alleged facts and violations alleged in the abovementioned, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste, and contribution and indemnification. The lawsuit seeks an award of damages, certain corporate governance reforms, restitution to the Company of damages allegedly sustained, disgorgement of profits and special benefits allegedly obtained, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as other relief the court may deem just and proper. Rent the Runway, Inc. is a fashion rental and resale platform that allows customers to access designer apparel and accessories through subscription, rental, and resale offerings. The company focuses on providing a shared closet experience enabled by its technology, logistics, and fulfillment infrastructure, professionals in architecture, engineering, construction, manufacturing, media, and entertainment markets worldwide. RESTAURANT RUNNER: Moncrieff Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurant Runner, Inc. The case is styled as Kyle Moncrieff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Runner, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04148-FJS (E.D. Cal., June 1, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Restaurant Runner -- https://www.restaurantrunner.net/ -- is a take-out and delivery service that works with the best local restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com RICHTER & PHILLIPS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. THE RICHTER & PHILLIPS COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-04625 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.richterphillips.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, 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 RICHTER & PHILLIPS COMPANY, operates the Richter Phillips online retail store, as well as the Richter Phillips interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Rosado Suit Removed to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Rosado, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 155428/2026 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on June 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-04617. In the complaint, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a putative class, asserts claims against Defendants under Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and supporting regulations for alleged failure to pay minimum and regular wages (including failure to provide uniform maintenance pay and failure to reimburse for business expenses), failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages timely, failure to provide wage notices and statements, improper retainer of service fees, failure to provide spread of hours pay, failure to provide a day of rest, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, restitution, equitable and injunctive relief to remedy alleged violations, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs (including expert fees).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (516) 587-8423 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: s.jean@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher A. Parlo, Esq. James J. La Rocca, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Fax: (212) 309-6001 Email: christopher.parlo@morganlewis.com james.larocca@morganlewis.com RIVER LIGHT: Farve Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------- ANGELA FARVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVER LIGHT V, L.P. and TORY BURCH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05140 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to procure consent before enabling TikTok and Google to intercept communications, in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), and the California Constitution. The complaint relates that the Defendants sell and market their products through the Website www.toryburch.com When consumers visit the Website, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendants use for targeted advertising and website performance purposes. Unbeknownst to their customers, and contrary to their express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, Defendants intercept and disclose their customers personally identifiable information ("PII"), and product purchase information to unknown third parties, including TikTok and Google, even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies. According to the complaint, on November 2023, Plaintiff accessed Defendants' Website -- while in California -- and made a purchase. Despite Defendants' representations of confidentiality, Plaintiff's communications during this visit were intercepted and disclosed to TikTok and Google through the tracking technologies, including communications that contained Plaintiff's PII and information about her purchases. Neither Defendants nor TikTok and Google procured Plaintiff's consent prior to these interceptions, nor was Plaintiff on notice of the fact that such interceptions were occurring. In fact, Defendants expressly warranted they didn't share directly personal information. Such disclosures are a violation of Plaintiff's privacy and were done intentionally for targeting advertising purposes, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass seek all relief available for invasion of privacy claims under California's Constitution. Plaintiff Angela Farve is a resident and citizen of San Francisco, California who maintained active accounts with TikTok and Google. Defendants River Light V, L.P. and Tory Burch, LLC are "American luxury lifestyle brand founded in New York in 2004, have began with a boutique in Manhattan and an e-commerce site and have grown into a global business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com ROUTE APP INC: Mertson Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Route App, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony Mertson, Michael Schirano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Javier's-DTLA, LLC; Javier's-CC, LLC; Javier's-LA, LLC; Javier's-Pasadena, LLC; Javier's-SD, LLC; Javier's-UTC, LLC; Marcos & Javiers, LLC; Case No. 3:26-cv-01172-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Route App, Inc. -- https://www.route.com/ -- operates as an application software company. The Company provides post-purchase package tracking and protection solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD 490 43rd St., Ste. 122 Oakland, CA 94609-2138 Phone: 202-350-4783 Email: arosenberg@kalielgold.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com RUSCIO INSTITUTE: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Gabriela Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Ruscio Institute LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00989 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://store.drruscio.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of health and wellness supplements, including probiotics, digestive support formulas, and nutritional products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law RUTGERS: Mohammad Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yazan Mohammad, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Case No. MID-L-2852-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06507. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Resident Assistants at Rutgers University have not paid wages for the work that they perform, including minimum and overtime wages. More specifically, the Complaint asserts minimum wage and overtime claims against Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John P. Lacey, Esq. Lauren F. Iannaccone, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY LLP 56 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 535-0500 SEATGEEK INC: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Scruggs Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SCRUGGS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SEATGEEK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00920 (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website https://seatgeek.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that during his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The Trackers are operated by distinct third parties, including TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Simon Data, Inc. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, adds the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff JEFFREY SCRUGGS was in California when he visited the Website. Defendant SEATGEEK, INC. entered into and maintained commercial partnerships with California-headquartered data and advertising companies, including Meta Platforms, Inc., headquartered in Menlo Park, California, and TikTok Inc., whose United States operations are headquartered in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@natha - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: $70MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Motley Rice LLC issued a statement regarding the Shoals Technologies Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION In re SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00334 Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes This Document Relates To: CLASS ACTION ALL ACTIONS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. ("SHOALS") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 16, 2022, AND MAY 7, 2024, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), INCLUDING PURCHASERS OF SHOALS COMMON STOCK IN SHOALS' DECEMBER 2022 SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ("Court"), that the action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class action, except for certain Persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 28, 2026 ("Stipulation"), and the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at www.ShoalsSecuritiesSettlement.com. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Erste Asset Management GmbH and Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees' Retirement Plan, and defendants Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., Jason R. Whitaker, Jeffery Tolnar, Kevin Hubbard, Dominic Bardos, Brad Forth, Peter Wilver, Ty Daul, Toni Volpe, Lori Sundberg, Jeanette Mills, Robert Julian, Brandon Moss, Dean Solon (the "Individual Defendants"), J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Piper Sandler & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Johnson Rice & Company L.L.C., and Northland Securities, Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants") (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $70 million in cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. at the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement of the Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation for $70 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice) and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement website, www.ShoalsSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the website. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHOALS COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 16, 2022, AND MAY 7, 2024, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than August 25, 2026) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than August 25, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by August 25, 2026, will subject your Claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.ShoalsSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to or calling: Shoals Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301133 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1133 Telephone: 1-888-808-7136 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for the Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com MOTLEY RICE LLC Christopher F. Moriarty 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: 1-843-216-9000 cmoriarty@motleyrice.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY SEPTEMBER 4, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY THE SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE $70 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $650,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 4, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: May 4, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE SIERRA LIVING: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIERRA LIVING CONCEPTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6522 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sierralivingconcepts.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on December 4, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase a mirrored buffet hutch. However, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant SIERRA LIVING CONCEPTS, INC. is a furniture retailer known for offering handcrafted pieces made from solid wood and emphasizing traditional craftsmanship techniques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SKYWEST AIRLINES: Must File Class Cert Opposition by July 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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] SOL AND SELENE: Tesch Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sol and Selene Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00758 (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.solandselene.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Tesch and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Tesch's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on April 13, 2026, Tesch discovered the Defendant's website, which offers a variety of handbags, backpacks, totes, and everyday accessories designed to combine functionality with style. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader, Tesch encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Tesch. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Tesch 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. Tesch 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. Plaintiff Ashley Tesch is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Sol and Selene Inc. 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 stylish handbags, totes, crossbody bags, backpacks, and travel accessories.[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 STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Dumas Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Darius Dumas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC. and STRAYER UNIVERSITY, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-1538 (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("Private Information") that was entrusted to Defendants. Between February 23, 2026 and February 25, 2026, SEI experienced a cybersecurity incident. This cybersecurity incident resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and hundreds of thousands of other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to first and last names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and passport numbers (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants, as substantial businesses, had the resources to take seriously the obligation to protect Private Information. However, Defendants failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The actions of Defendants related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate the risks posed by Defendants' negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former student of Strayer University. Strategic Education, Inc. is an education services company headquartered in Herndon, Virginia that, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Strayer, owns and operates Strayer University and Capella University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan Scout Graham, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 934-6377 Fax: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8850 Fax: (212) 350-8860 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Fax: (212) 350-8860 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com STS OPERATING: Funderburk Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB FUNDERBURK, individually and on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STS OPERATING, INC. d/b/a SUNSOURCE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06061 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. On April 30, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious cybercriminal group, "PayoutsKing," has claimed responsibility for the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. STS Operating, Inc. is an Illinois-based industrial distributor and solutions provider for North America's industrial and high-technology operators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 323-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com SUNSTATES SECURITY: Panorelli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunstates Security, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Panorelli, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunstates Security, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV013241 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as Other Employment Complaint Case." Sunstates Security, LLC -- https://www.sunstatessecurity.com/ -- is one of the industry's leading providers of contract security services with a differentiated approach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kym Kanenaka, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-488-6555 SYDNEY EVAN: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sydney Evan, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06379 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.sydneyevan.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 15, 2026, Plaintiff Bowman was searching online for a brand that offers golden charms and discovered the Defendant's website. She reviewed customer feedback on social media platforms and decided to explore the available offerings and became interested in purchasing the Pure Gold Small Melting Happy Face Charm. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader software, Plaintiff Bowman encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Bowman and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bowman 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. Sydney Evan operates the website that offers jewelry items, including bracelets, earrings, necklaces, rings, and anklets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law TENNESSEE: Benjamin Seeks to Certify Class of Noncitizens --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, BENJAMIN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, in his official capacity as the Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order provisionally certifying a class of all noncitizens who are subject to Section 1 of H.B. 1704. This class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and falls squarely within Rule 23(b)(2). H.B. 1704 threatens thousands of noncitizens across Tennessee. The class raises the uniform legal question of whether the statute is preempted by federal immigration law. And the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of all other class members, because they all face the same harms under the same preempted law. The proposed class representatives, Lucy and Benjamin, seek certification of a Plaintiff Class defined as: "All noncitizens who, now or in the future, are aliens against whom a valid final order of removal has been outstanding for 90 days or longer by reason of being a member of any of the classes described in 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a), and who intentionally fail or refuse to depart from Tennessee." Because Plaintiffs challenge state conduct that applies broadly and uniformly to all members of the class, and because they seek declaratory and injunctive relief that would redress the classwide harm, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HN5ZZk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: hsteinberg@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7260 E-mail: lucas@aclu-tn.org zscout@aclu-tn.org - and - Peter McGraw, Esq. Efrén Olivares, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: mcgraw@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org TEXAS CAPITAL: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Martin Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC MARTIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC. d/b/a TEXAS CAPITAL BANK and BASK BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01828-X (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. On April 27, 2026, Defendant became aware of a security incident on its network and systems. Defendant concluded that an unauthorized actor accessed its systems and acquired the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: names and Social Security numbers. On May 28, 2026, Defendant began sending Notice of Data Security Incident letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in the Data Breach ("Notice"). 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. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. 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 Isaac Martin is a citizen and resident of Austin, Texas who is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Texas Capital Bank, a Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. subsidiary, is an FDIC-insured financial institution specializing in high-yield savings accounts and certificates of deposit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com TEXAS CAPITAL: Inadequately Protects Private Info, Shah Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC. d/b/a TEXAS CAPITAL BANK and BASK BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01813-D (N.D. Tex., June , 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and failure to encrypt or redact this highly sensitive 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 that was compromised on April 27, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Defendant began sending Notice of Data Security Incident letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in the data breach. 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 Vishal Shah is a citizen and resident of Buena Park, California. Defendant Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. d/b/a Texas Capital Bank and Bask Bank is an FDIC-insured financial institution specializing in high-yield savings accounts and certificates of deposit.[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 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 157 Columbus Ave, Fl. 4 New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 395-5666 E-mail: elena@almeidalawgroup.com TGB RESTAURANT: Niass Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Baye Niass, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TGB RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a THE GRANOLA BAR, THE GRANOLA BAR AT 86, LLC, THE GRANOLA BAR ON MADISON, LLC, and XYZ CORPS 1-4, Case No. 1:26-cv-04602 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026), is brought for unpaid regular and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), seeking compensatory and liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee under New York's managerial exemption, despite the fact his primary duties involved preparing and serving food and beverages, bussing tables, and other manual labor, which accounted for approximately 80% of Plaintiff's work hours. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiff received a flat salary in violation of New York's wage & hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "general manager" at two of their fast-casual dining restaurants from August 19, 2024, until his wrongful termination on April 17, 2026. TGB owns upscale fast-casual dining establishments in multiple states, including New York and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 123 5th Avenue, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10003 THC ORANGE COUNTY: Rehan Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA REHAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. THC – ORANGE COUNTY, LLC (THC-OC), a California limited liability company; KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company; KINDRED HOSPITAL – SAN DIEGO (“KHSD”), an entity of unknown form, and DOES 1 though 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-03128-LL-GC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Compelling the Defendants to serve further responses, without objection, to the Plaintiff's special interrogatories (Set One) and requests for production (Set One); 2. Compelling the Defendants to produce all responsive, non-privileged documents relating to the Plaintiff's class allegations and the discovery requests at issue in this Motion; and 3. Extending the current deadlines governing class discovery and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and any related deadlines, for a period sufficient to permit Plaintiff to obtain, review, analyze, and utilize the compelled discovery. This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26, 33, 34, and 37 and is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of William Tran and exhibits attached thereto, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented to the Court THC – Orange provides specialized care for critically ill patients. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vvmeE5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: a.lindsay@d.law w.tran@d.law THULE INC: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thule, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06525 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.thule.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 11, 2026, while searching online for strollers, the Plaintiff came across Defendant's website. After reviewing feedback from Illinois customers, she began exploring the stroller collection and selected the Thule Urban Glide 3. However, while navigating the Website and attempting to complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: hidden elements on the web page, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, 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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Thule'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. Thule, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of outdoor and travel gear, including roof racks, cargo boxes, rooftop tents, bike and water-sport carriers, strollers, and travel luggage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com TODD BLANCHE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARTER COE, by and through his parent and next friend, CAROLINE COE; et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, v. TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04641-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs have concurrently filed a motion for temporary restraining order and provisional class certification, which reference the class certification arguments advanced in the memorandum of law attached to this motion. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court consider the arguments in the accompanying memorandum in support of this motion when considering the Plaintiffs' concurrently filed motion for a temporary restraining order and provisional class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8f7Mxo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Esq. Karen L. Loewy, Esq. Nora Huppert, Esq. A.D. Sean Lewis, Esq. LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 120 Wall Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 809-8585 Facsimile: (855) 535-2236 E-mail: ogonzalez-pagan@lambdalegal.org kloewy@lambdalegal.org nhuppert@lambdalegal.org alewis@lambdalegal.org - and - Robert Hodgson, Esq. Gabriella Larios, Esq. Anya Weinstock, Esq. NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 E-mail: rhodgson@nyclu.org glarios@nyclu.org - and - Chase B. Strangio, Esq. Shana Knizhnik, Esq. Elizabeth Gill, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, Floor 18 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 E-mail: cstrangio@aclu.org sknizhnik@aclu.org egill@aclu.org TOOLSTODAY.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Toolstoday.com LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6328 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://toolstoday.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Williams' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Williams attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on March 18, 2026. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to complete the order. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Williams. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Williams 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. Williams 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 Darnell Williams is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Toolstoday.com 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 industrial cutting tools, power tools, CNC machines, and workshop supplies for woodworking, metalworking, and fabrication applications, such as router bits, saw blades, boring and drilling bits, shaper cutters, abrasives, CNC tooling, and related shop supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Seeks to Certifies Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK SHAFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00941-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNCR") Class and the National Internal DNC Class defined as: DNCR Class: "All persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent at least two text messages within any 12-month period, (2) by Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf; (3) for the purpose of promoting the Defendant's products and services; (4) even though the person's telephone number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; and (5) the person did not agree to receive such text messages from the Defendant." National Internal Do Not Call Class: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) received at least two text messages within any 12-month period; (2) from Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf; (3) for the purpose of promoting the Defendant's products and services; (4) to the person's personal telephone number; (5) while the Defendant did not institute procedures that met the minimum standards required by 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(d)(1)-(6)." -- appointing the Plaintiff Rick Shafer as the class representative, and -- appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel Because only modest damages are available to each class member under the TCPA (up to $500 per violation), a denial of class certification would deprive the putative class members of compensation for Defendant's violations. No individual would sue for damages when court costs would outweigh the recovery. The Defendant obtained consumer telephone numbers primarily through third-party lead-generation websites that did not identify the Defendant in their consent disclosures. The only consent form the Defendant identified—its "communication policy"-was signed only at the time of purchase, does not meet the requirements of 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2)(ii), and the Defendant was unable to produce the signed form for the Plaintiff or confirm the number of consumers who executed the form. This is appropriate for class-wide resolution. On Dec. 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Toyota Camry Hybrid from Defendant's dealership. The Defendant is an automobile dealership located in Boardman Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuuFmM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. Kayla N. Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com kkershen@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TRADER JOE'S: McIntosh Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly McIntosh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03521 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06024-RGK-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Trader Joe's -- https://www.traderjoes.com/home -- is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0708 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Hannah Yael Shay Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019-6022 Phone: (212) 326-2000 Email: hchanoine@omm.com TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Hometown Balks at HVAC Equipment Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOMETOWN HEATING & COOLING, LLC, on behalf of itself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS INC., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.,THERMAL NETICS, LLC, ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, BHC RESIDENTIAL & LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, BOSCH HOME COMFORT LLC, AAON, INC., AAON, INC., AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11686-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) is a civil antitrust action on behalf of the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities who directly purchased HVAC Equipment manufactured by the Defendants in the United States beginning at least as early as January 1, 2020 through the present, brought pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants used two mechanisms to support their price fixing conspiracy. The first, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, an industry trade association that Defendants largely control. AHRI operated a give-to-get data exchange -- to receive competitive intelligence about the industry, a manufacturer had to hand over its own non-public, confidential, and proprietary information. The second was Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News, a specialized trade publication that served as Defendants' preferred channel to broadcast price increases and telegraph their intentions on pricing and supply. Through these mechanisms, the Defendants drove a wedge between manufacturing costs and the prices at which they sold HVAC Equipment. The Defendants combined and conspired to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the price of HVAC Equipment sold to United States purchasers during the Class Period. The combination or conspiracy among Defendants consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concerted action between and among Defendants, says the suit. Plaintiff Hometown Heating & Cooling, LLC is a limited liability company registered in Virginia. It purchases, installs, and services residential HVAC equipment in and around Northern Virginia. Trane Technologies plc is a publicly traded HVAC company headquartered and incorporated in Dublin, Ireland. Trane Technologies' North American and United States headquarters are in Davidson, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Michael P. Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. The Fisher Building 3011 W. Grand Boulevard, Floor 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com - and - Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6443 E-mail: kgarvey@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com - and - Christopher Burke, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law klv@burke.law TRANS UNION: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE L. JACKSON, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01069-MEO-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Orso entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification of claims against the Defendant is granted, and the case shall proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); 2. The Plaintiff Connie Jackson is designated as class representative; 3. The class for the Plaintiff's Claims is defined as: "All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a CPE report sold by Defendant; (b) on or after Aug. 12, 2019 and continuing through the date on which the class list is prepared; (c) in which the Trans Union subscriber showing in the Defendant's records is Liberty Credit Management." Excluded from the Class are all persons who have signed a written release of their claim, and/or are counsel in this case, or employed by the Federal Judiciary. 4. The law firms of Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. and Flores Law, PLLC, who are the attorneys of record for the appointed class representative, are appointed to serve as class counsel; and 5. The Court directs the parties to confer and submit, within 14 days, a jointly prepared draft Notice to the class consistent with this order and Rule 23(c)(2). Plaintiff Connie L. Jackson alleges she was the victim of a debt collection scheme. According to Plaintiff, as part of the scheme, the Defendant furnished a consumer report about the Plaintiff to non-party Liberty Credit Management in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vTtA99 at no extra charge.[CC] TRUSTILE DOORS LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TruStile Doors, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02820-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., June 2, 2026), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.abbott.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of the Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content the Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access the Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that the Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers medical devices and solutions for sale including, but not limited to, diabetes solutions, nutrition products, diagnostics testing, cardiovascular solutions, pain and movement solutions, biowearables, medicines, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com UMBRELLA SCENTS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Umbrella Scents US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06332 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.oakcha.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 25, 2026, Plaintiff Williams searched online for a perfume and discovered the Defendant's website. To learn more, he reviewed customer feedback and decided to explore the available fragrance offerings. However, while navigating the website using his assistive technology, Plaintiff Williams encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his intended purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, 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. Umbrella Scents US LLC operates the website that offers fragrances and perfume oils for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law UNITED AIRLINES: Class Cert. Filing in Vollera Due March 15, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eva Vollera, v. United Airlines, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10465-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: Fact discovery Ct0off date for class certification issues due Nov. 18, 2026. Motion for class certification due March 15, 2027 Opposition to class certification due April 12, 2027 Reply in support of class certification April 26, 2027 United Airlines is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JFew2M at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Ross Seeks to Recover Payment of Unlawful Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04643 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026) is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant UPS to recover money wrongfully collected from her and the Class by Defendant under the illegal tariffs and to obtain appropriate relief permitted by law. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal. Before that ruling, UPS imposed tariff-related charges and increased shipping costs on customers, including Plaintiff, based on those now-invalid tariffs. The Plaintiff paid these increased charges as part of shipping costs for goods transported by UPS. Because the underlying tariffs have been declared illegal, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of amounts collected by UPS that were based on or attributed to those unlawful tariffs. United Parcel Service Incorporated is an American multinational supply chain management and package delivery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W. 93rd Street 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. Andre Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com UNITED STATES: Angye Sues Over Rampant Abuses in Detention Center ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Akari Angye, Navdeep, Erik Ivan Rodriguez Flores, and ZOR, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, Marisa Flores, Angel Garite, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of War, and Pete Hegseth, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01515 (W.D. Tex., May 29, 2026) is a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy violations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and declaratory and set-aside relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint relates that in August 2025, the U.S. government rushed to erect and populate a massive tent encampment on the Fort Bliss military base in El Paso, Texas. With a stated capacity of 5,000 detained human beings, the ERO El Paso Camp East Montana Detention Facility ("Camp East Montana") is the largest immigration detention center in the country. People detained at Camp East Montana include asylum seekers, mothers and fathers who have lived in the United States for decades, and people who are stateless. People have been confined there for six months or more while they wait for their immigration cases to be heard or travel documents to be procured. Some have been waiting for travel documents from a foreign country that has failed to produce such documents for over a decade and expect a long, continued wait, caged in these torturous conditions. No one at Camp East Montana is confined there pursuant to a criminal sentence, meaning that, under constitutional law, their conditions of confinement cannot lawfully amount to punishment. In fact, as of the latest available data, only 20% of those detained in Camp East Montana were identified by ICE as having a criminal background. Despite this, the conditions at Camp East Montana are unquestionably punitive, in some respects even more punitive than prison, notes the complaint. In the ten months that it has been operational, the facility has become notorious for flagrant human rights abuses that people endure during their detention -- they are confined to windowless enclosures in tents and suffer egregious physical abuse by guards; abhorrent medical and mental health care, including for people with chronic conditions like cancer and HIV; indiscriminate use of solitary confinement to punish and silence victims of guard abuse; and other flagrant constitutional violations, including exposure to measles, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Despite being a civil detention center, conditions at Camp East Montana are overwhelmingly punitive. That is so just based on the conditions themselves, without more. But the punitiveness of the detention is also reflected in something else: Defendants' clear expressed intent to punish people like the Plaintiffs and the putative Class. Defendants have been clear that they are purposefully creating unbearable and harsh detention conditions in an effort to punish and pressure immigrants to leave. In addition to the evidence of punitive intent, Defendants have repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of Camp East Montana is to detain "criminal aliens," adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have suffered irreparable physical and psychological injury and the loss of fundamental due process and Fifth Amendment rights. They have been and will continue to be subjected to serious risk of irreparable harm as the result of their detention at Camp East Montana, says the suit. Plaintiffs are currently detained at Camp East Montana at Ft. Bliss, under the authority of DHS and ICE. Defendants are agencies of the United States, or officers of agencies of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kyle Virgien, Esq. Rita Lomio, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_rlomio@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org - and - Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, Esq. Elisa Epstein, Esq. 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: ciguinagonzalez@aclu.org eepstein@aclu.org - and - Jim Day, Esq. Cynthia A. Castillo, Esq. Raven Quesenberry, Esq. Hilary C. Krase, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: jday@fbm.com ccastillo@fbm.com rquesenberry@fbm.com hkrase@fbm.com - and - Savannah Kumar, Esq. Fabiola Alvelais, Esq. Edgar Saldivar, Esq. Adriana Pinon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. P.O. Box 8306 Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: skumar@aclutx.org falvelais@aclutx.org esaldivar@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org - and - Alana Park, Esq. Zachary Dolling, Esq. Charlotte Weiss, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 17757 Austin, TX 78760 Telephone: (512) 474-5073 ext. 162 E-mail: alana@texascivilrightsproject.org zachary@texascivilrightsproject.org cweiss@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Dustin Rynders, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 1108 Houston, TX 77251 Telephone: (832) 767-3630 ext. 196 E-mail: dustin@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Daniel Hatoum, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 219 Alamo, TX 78516 Telephone: (956) 787-8171 ext. 127 E-mail: daniel@texascivilrightsproject.org UNITED STATES: Bid for Leave to File Supplemental Brief OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S. et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405 (D.C.C., Filed May 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental brief in support of class certification In light of the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief and supporting exhibits simply update the plaintiffs' 9 Motion for Class Certification with new facts and do not require new legal argumentation. The Defendants shall, on or before June 15, 2026, respond to the Supplemental Brief and supporting exhibits; the plaintiffs shall reply on or before June 25, 2026. The Court further entered an order that the plaintiffs' Sealed Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym, which the defendants do not oppose, is granted as to Esmeralda C., Lorenzo V., and Brian G., and their next friends. The Court orders that the parties proceed consistent with the May 16, 2025 Minute Order. The suit alleges vioation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendant is responsible for public health, health care, and human/social services for the United States of America.[CC] UNITED STATES: Candemeres Sues Over Unfair Push-up Requirement -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Candemeres, LaTanja Outlaw, and Jennifer Cimins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01884 (D.D.C., May 29, 2026) is an action against Defendant Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, for discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arises out of the push-up requirements that U.S. Customs and Border Protection imposes as part of its pre-employment assessment for applicants seeking CBP Officer positions. Since 2009, CBP has required CBPO applicants and trainees to meet timed push up requirements at various stages of the hiring process: 12 push-ups in one minute on the first pre employment fitness test, 17 push-ups in one minute on a second pre-employment fitness test used until 2017, and 24 push-ups in one minute on the Fitness Graduation Standard administered at the end of the CBP Field Operations Academy. Those cut-offs have operated as unlawful barriers to entry for women, who are screened out at substantially higher rates than men. Because of well-established physiological differences in upper-body strength, requiring women and men to perform the same number of push-ups imposes a significantly greater burden on women. As a result, women who are otherwise qualified, who passed other parts of the hiring process, and who are capable of performing the CBPO job have been denied employment simply because they missed an arbitrary push-up threshold, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Candemeres is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Florida. She applied for and was selected as a CBPO trainee, but her conditional employment was terminated after CBP determined that she failed the FGS push-up requirement by two push-ups. Markwayne Mullin is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is the federal executive department responsible for public security, border control, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, and emergency response.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Phoebe M. Wolfe, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com pwolfe@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy D. Wright, Esq. Nicole E. Portnov, Esq. KATOR, PARKS, WEISER & WRIGHT, PLLC 1150 Connecticut Ave., Ste. 705 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 898-4800 Facsimile: (202) 289-1389 E-mail: jwright@katorparks.com nportnov@katorparks.com US CITYLINK: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Citylink Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Kamaljeet Singh, on behalf of all individuals similarly situated v. U.S. Citylink Corporation, Navdeep S. Grewal, Case No. 26CUB02108 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." U.S. Citylink Corporation -- https://uscitylink.com/ -- offer a full suite of trucking and logistics services to meet all your transportation needs under one roof in USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Moura, Esq. Young Ryu, Esq. Harley M. Phleger, Esq. Kee Seok Mah, Esq. LOYR, APC 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2548 Phone: 213-318-5323 Fax: 800-576-1170 Email: zach.moura@loywr.com young.ryu@loywr.com harley.phleger@loywr.com US FOODS: Bradford Files ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plan Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICKEY BRADFORD and CLEVELAND DUKE, on behalf of the US Foods 401(k) Plan, Plaintiffs v. US FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06271 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2026) seeks to protect the retirement savings of more than 28,000 current and former U.S. Foods employees who participate in the US Foods 401(k) Plan. Every ERISA-compliant retirement plan must have a written plan document. It binds the fiduciaries who administer the plan, controls the use of plan assets, and protects participants' rights. A fiduciary's refusal or failure to follow the written plan document violates ERISA. According to the complaint, Plan participants contribute part of their wages to individual Plan accounts. Those employee contributions, and earnings on those contributions, are immediately fully vested. US Foods also contributes to the Plan by making matching contributions for eligible participants. Those employer contributions vest over time and when the Plan's service rules are satisfied. However, US Foods failed to follow the language of the Plan Document, asserts the complaint. Rather than use forfeitures first to pay Plan expenses, US Foods used forfeitures to first reduce its own employer contribution obligations while the Plan and its participants continued paying Plan expenses, says the suit. US Foods, Inc. distributes food products. The Company offers meats, appetizers, prepared meals, and frozen foods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 237-2281 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us US MED: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leedy v. US Med Direct, LLC, Case No 5:25-cv-00631 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting Joint Motion to Extend Class Certification Related Deadlines. An amended CMSO is forthcoming. However, requested deadlines are not guaranteed and are subject to the Court's trial schedule. Further, granting certain extensions may impact other relevant deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). US MED is a provider of diabetes supplies.[CC] USA: Prelim Injunction for DEI Termination Class Affirmed in Thakur ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NEETA THAKUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; KEN ALEX; NELL GREEN NYLEN; ROBERT HIRST; CHRISTINE PHILLIOU; JEDDA FOREMAN; ELI BERMAN; SUSAN HANDY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY; AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency; NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; BRIAN STONE, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the National Science Foundation; NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES; MICHAEL MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; BROOKE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; AMERICORPS, aka the Corporation for National and Community Service; JENNIFER BASTRESS TAHMASEBI, in her official capacity as Interim Agency Head of AmeriCorps; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETER HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CHRIS WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Secretary of Energy; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL; MATTHEW BUZZELLI, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; MARTIN A. MAKARY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; UNITED STATES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; JAYANTA BHATTACHARYA, in his official capacity as Director of the National Institutes of Health; INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES; KEITH SONDERLING, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of State; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SEAN DUFFY, in his official capacity as Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 25-4249 (9th Cir.), the U.S. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's preliminary injunction ordering the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities to reinstate University of California (UC) research grants that the agencies had terminated pursuant to certain Executive Orders, and remanded. The named Plaintiffs are six UC researchers who applied for and received multi-year research grants from three federal agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Christine Philliou is a history professor at UC Berkeley who received NEH grant funding. Ken Alex is a climate policy researcher at UC Berkeley School of Law who received EPA grant funding. Neeta Thakur is a physician and associate professor of medicine at UC San Francisco who received EPA grant funding. Nell Green Nylen is a water management researcher at UC Berkeley School of Law who received EPA grant funding. Jedda Foreman is an environmental researcher at UC Berkeley who received NSF grant funding. Robert Hirst is the editor of the Mark Twain Project at UC Berkeley and received NEH grant funding. In April 2025, EPA, NSF, and NEH sent form letters to UC Berkeley that purported to terminate the Plaintiffs' research grants pursuant to certain Executive Orders issued by the President. On June 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs initiated a class action on behalf of similarly situated UC researchers whose federally funded grants had been or imminently would be terminated or suspended, raising constitutional and statutory claims. They named numerous federal agencies and officers as defendants, and alleged violations of free speech, due process, separation-of-powers principles, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the grant terminations were unlawful and to enjoin the grant terminations. They moved for a temporary restraining order and to certify a class. On June 23, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified two classes of UC researchers: (1) those whose grants were terminated by form letter without any grant-specific explanation (the Form Termination Class); and (2) those whose grants were terminated because of DEI Executive Orders that sought to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) policies and initiatives from all aspects of the federal government (DEI Termination Class). It concluded that the Form Termination Class was likely to succeed on its claim that the grant terminations were arbitrary and capricious, and that the DEI Termination Class was likely to succeed on its claims that the grant terminations violated the First Amendment and were contrary to the agencies' congressionally mandated directives. The government appealed and sought a stay pending appeal. On August 21, the Ninth Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. Several hours after the issuance of that order, the Supreme Court decided National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (NIH), 145 S. Ct. 2658 (2025). The government moved for reconsideration of the court's order in light of NIH. The Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior order and issued an amended order that granted in part and denied in part the government's request for a stay pending appeal. The government contended that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and that the district court abused its discretion by awarding preliminary injunctive relief to the Form Termination Class and the DEI Termination Class. The Ninth Circuit Panel held that the Plaintiffs established Article III standing. It found that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged injury flowing from the government's grant terminations where they alleged the grant terminations resulted in a loss of funding and declared that no alternative funding was readily available. Moreover, the Plaintiffs alleged that the grant terminations caused injuries beyond the loss of grant funding, such as harm to reputation, disruption of projects, and the need to expend time and resources seeking alternative sources of funding. The Panel reversed the preliminary injunction as to the Form Termination Class, finding they were unlikely to succeed on their APA claim. It held that under the Tucker Act, district courts lack jurisdiction over APA claims that are essentially contract disputes. Because the Plaintiffs were challenging the termination of research grants as arbitrary and capricious and seeking to enforce payment obligations under those grants, the claim was contractual in nature. Relying on NIH, the Panel concluded the district court likely lacked jurisdiction over the Form Termination Class's APA claim. The Panel affirmed the preliminary injunction with respect to the DEI Termination Class. It held that the DEI Termination Class is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, where the agencies selected particular grants for termination regardless of the programs through which they were funded, and made decisions to terminate based only on the recipients' perceived expression of DEI, DEIA, or environmental justice viewpoints. Because the agencies' termination of grants was aimed at the suppression of viewpoints with which the government disagrees, it likely violates the First Amendment. Because it found the Form Termination Class failed to show a likelihood of success, the Panel limited its review of the remaining equitable factors to the DEI Termination Class. It agreed the district court acted within its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, noting that the DEI Termination Class showed likely success on its First Amendment claim and that both sides would face some harm whether the injunction was upheld or lifted. The Panel also held the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering reinstatement of the terminated grants to provide complete relief. Judge Morgan Christen, concurring in the per curiam opinion, wrote separately to explain that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the Form Termination Class’s APA claim. She reasoned that the identity of the plaintiff does not determine whether a claim is contractual in nature. Because the claim involved research grants and sought enforcement of a payment obligation under those grants, it was fundamentally contractual. She further explained that the claim does not become non-contractual simply because it was brought by a party not in privity with the government. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/X0ExXzGvK. Erwin Chemerinsky (argued) -- echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu -- and Claudia Polsky -- cpolsky@law.berkeley.edu -- UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, California; Linda S. Gilleran -- lgilleran@fbm.com -- Dylan M. Silva -- dsilva@fbm.com -- Kyle A. McLorg -- kmclorg@fbm.com -- Katherine T. Balkoski -- kbalkoski@fbm.com -- Anthony P. Schoenberg -- tschoenberg@fbm.com -- and Donald E. Sobelman -- dsobelman@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP, San Francisco, California; Nabila M. Abdallah -- nabdallah@lchb.com -- Annie M. Wanless -- awanless@lchb.com -- Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- and Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Yaakov M. Roth (argued), Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Sophia Shams, Derek Weiss, Mark R. Freeman, and Daniel Tenny, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Kathryn Barragan, Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch; Eric D. McArthur, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants. USHEALTH ADVISORS: 4th Cir. Orders Arbitration in Sessoms TCPA Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CYNTHIA MICHELLE SESSOMS, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-2086 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. USHealth appeals a district court order denying arbitration in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action brought by Sessoms. The court held that the case should not be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because USHealth was not a third-party beneficiary of an online agreement between Sessoms and NextGen Leads, LLC, a lead-generation company. As a result, the court found USHealth could not enforce the arbitration clause under Delaware law. In October 2024, Sessoms filed a putative TCPA class action against USHealth in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging she received a prerecorded call in February 2024 promoting health insurance without her prior express consent. After answering the complaint, USHealth moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Sessoms had previously visited a lead-generation website operated by NextGen and FirstQuoteHealth, where she submitted her information through an online form. USHealth claimed the form disclosed "Marketing Partners," including USHealth, and that by completing it, Sessoms consented to receive telemarketing calls and agreed to arbitrate disputes. USHealth argued that although Sessoms never signed a contract with USHealth itself, she agreed to NextGen's online Terms and Conditions, which included an arbitration clause that USHealth contended should govern the dispute. Based on that agreement, USHealth moved to compel arbitration of all claims. Sessoms opposed the motion, arguing that under Fourth Circuit precedent the court must first decide whether USHealth, as a non-signatory, can enforce the arbitration agreement. She further argued that under Delaware law, USHealth was at most an incidental beneficiary of the NextGen agreement and therefore had no right to invoke the arbitration clause. In its August 2025 order, the district court denied USHealth's motion to compel arbitration of Sessoms's TCPA claim. The court held that USHealth was not a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Use between Sessoms and NextGen, and therefore could not enforce the arbitration clause. It also denied USHealth's request to stay the proceedings. USHealth appealed, arguing that the court erred by deciding the issue itself instead of leaving it to an arbitrator, and that even if the court had authority to decide, it misapplied Delaware law in concluding that USHealth could not enforce the arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary. The Fourth Circuit rejected USHealth's argument that an arbitrator should decide whether it can enforce the arbitration clause, finding that issue is foreclosed by Fourth Circuit precedent requiring courts to decide it. However, it agreed with USHealth that the district court misapplied Delaware law in concluding USHealth was not a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Use between Sessoms and NextGen, and therefore could not enforce the arbitration agreement. In sum, the Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly decided the threshold issue of enforceability under Rogers v. Tug Hill Operating, LLC, 76 F.4th 279 (4th Cir. 2023), but erred in its conclusion on third-party beneficiary status, which led to the improper denial of USHealth's motion to compel arbitration. For these reasons, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of USHealth's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case with instructions to enter an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings pending arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/5srshwt. ARGUED: Jeffrey Aaron Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- GREENSPOON MARDER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant. Jacob Lawrence Phillips -- jacob@jacobsonphillips.com -- JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC, Winter Park, Florida, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John H. Pelzer -- john.pelzer@gmlaw.com -- Roy Taub -- roy.taub@gmlaw.com -- GREENSPOON MARDER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant. Manuel S. Hiraldo -- mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- HIRALDO P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- WILKERSON JUSTUS, LLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. VACPARTSWAREHOUSE.COM LLC: Stewart Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VACPARTSWAREHOUSE.COM LLC, D/B/A PARTSWAREHOUSE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01809-X (N.D. Tex., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names, addresses, payment card numbers, card expiration dates, and card verification codes (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that despite PartsWarehouse's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's online shopping platform and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on October 31, 2025. It was not until May 20, 2026 when Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant notifying him of the Data Breach and theft of his PII. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment arising from the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Plaintiff Adam Steward received a data breach notice informing him that his Private Information indirectly and/or directly provided to PartsWarehouse was compromised during the Data Breach. Defendant VacPartsWarehouse.com LLC, d/b/a PartsWarehouse.com is an online retailer that sells replacement parts and accessories for appliances, electronics, and various household and commercial equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-609-6910 Facsimile: 267-609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com - and - Paul C. Whelan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHELAN, P.C. P. O. Box 111 Haines Falls NY 12436 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 E-mail: Pcwhalen@me.com VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Parham Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Carolyn Parham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, VANDERBILT HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00747 (M.D. Tenn., June 1, 2026), is brought against Defendants challenging policies and practices of Defendants failure to pay proper wages that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff typically spent up to 15 minutes donning her sterile work clothing for each shift. She was not paid any amount for this time. At all relevant times, The Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendants, including donning time. Accordingly, because she was not paid for her donning time, she was not paid all of the overtime hours that she worked. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were hourly employees who worked for Defendants within the last three years and were required to change into sterile work clothing at Defendants' facilities without pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, individually and jointly, from August 2021 until August 2025 as a Sterile Processing Technician at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Vanderbilt Health is a growing academic health system anchored by Defendant VUMC, providing patient care, conducting research, and training health professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com VISION OF HOPE: Plaintiffs Must Refile Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSANNA MILLER and FAITH RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00033-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to refile the motion to certify class with their opening brief. The motion to Certify Class has been pending since February 13, 2026. The Defendants have been granted an extension so that the Defendants' response brief is due on or before July 9, 2026 and the parties have been engaging in discovery. Vision of Hope provides humanitarian aid. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwOkzE at no extra charge.[CC] VIVID SEATS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Scruggs Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SCRUGGS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. VIVID SEATS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02020-DC-CKD (E.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website www.vividseats.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that during his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal interests. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being intercepted by third parties, the complaint contends. The Website did not display any consent banner, pop-up, cookie notice, or other authorization mechanism requesting permission before deploying the Trackers to intercept user communications. Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Jeffrey Scruggs was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including on February 26, 2026.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com VONS COMPANIES INC: Lloyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vons Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Lloyd, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Vons Companies, Inc., Case No. 26STCV17136 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach Of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." The Vons Companies, Inc. -- https://www.vons.com/ -- is a prominent supermarket chain operating primarily in Southern California and the Las Vegas Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111-5235 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com WALMART INC: Keets Sues Over Unlawful Lie Detector Test ------------------------------------------------------- Donald Keets, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., (Mass. Commonwealth, Suffolk Cty., June 2, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's use of a centralized hiring system that requires Massachusetts job applicants to submit self-disclosures of criminal history and subjects those applicants to an unlawful lie detector test, which purports to measure honesty or truthfulness, as a condition of obtaining employment--its "Falsification" Policy. The Plaintiff alleges that Walmart has violated, and continues to violate the Section 19B by implementing a centralized background check and disclosure system that evaluates applicant honesty by comparing self-reported criminal history against independently obtained records and conditioning employment eligibility on whether Walmart concludes that an applicant answered truthfully. Walmart's use of this system functions as a prohibited honesty testing mechanism under the intentionally broad definition of "lie detector tests." The Plaintiff further alleges that Walmart conditions employment on applicants' participation in this process, including by requiring applicants to affirm that refusal to provide information or participate in the process will result in the refusal to consider an applicant for employment and/or automatic rescission of a conditional job offer and denial of employment. Plaintiff alleges that Walmart used the results of this unlawful process as a basis to refuse to hire him, causing significant economic damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Keets applied for employment in a Stocking position at Walmart in January 2025. Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-607-3261 Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com - and - Christopher McNerney, Esq. Aaron Bryce Lee, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (2 12) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2005 Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com alee@outtengolden.com - and - Ossai Miazad, Esq. Pooja Shethji, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Ave NW, suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 Email: omiazad@outengolden.com pshethji@outtengolden.com WALMART INC: Martinez Seeks Refund of Tariff Overcharges -------------------------------------------------------- REBECA MARTINEZ and CHAD SCHUK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23631 (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2026) arises from Walmart's alleged retention of windfall money and/or profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Following the imposition of the subject tariffs, Walmart publicly stated that it would implement price increases across its product lines to manage the financial impact of the subject tariffs. This windfall is a direct result of Walmart systematically passing on a percentage of the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers. Walmart has been projected to be entitled to receive as much (if not more) than $10 billion back in tariff refunds, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs therefore seek a judgment that Walmart is obligated to return to Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members all IEEPA tariffs passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest, and that any IEEPA refunds Walmart receives from the U.S. government be held in a constructive trust for the benefit of the Class. The Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Walmart recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational omnichannel retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, and gas stations in the United States and 19 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James P. Gitkin, Esq. SALPETER GITKIN, LLP 3864 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 467-8622 Facsimile: (954) 467-8623 E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com - and - Thomas J. Connick, Esq. SCHNEIDER BELL LLP 1375 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-4200 Facsimile: (216) 696-7303 E-mail: tconnick@mysblaw.com - and - Edward W. Cochran, Esq. 20030 Marchmont Rd. Shaker Heights, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 577-4545 E-mail: edward@edwcochran.com - and - John C. Rayson, Esq. 1031 NE 27th Avenue Pompano Beach, FL 33062 Telephone: (954) 258-3585 E-mail: johncrayson@gmail.com WATERFORD HOTEL: Christopher Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESMERALDA CHRISTOPHER and LISA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATERFORD HOTEL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00846 (D. Conn., May 29, 2026) is a class action against Waterford for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that Waterford's customers entrusted to it, including, without limitation, individuals' names and payment card information. On or around May 11, 2026, Waterford experienced a data breach, during which cybercriminals accessed or acquired the above-referenced personally identifiable information, along with additional information stored on Waterford’s information technology network. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' PII, Waterford assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The PII was compromised due to Waterford's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its failure to protect Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' PII. In addition to Waterford's failure to prevent the data breach, Waterford has not disclosed any details regarding the data breach to Plaintiffs and Class Members. Waterford has also purposefully withheld the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the data breach and has not disclosed that information to Plaintiffs and other customers, says the suit. Waterford Hotel Group, LLC is a hotel management company that develops, owns, and operates over 30 hotels, primarily in New England.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Slossberg, Esq. Julie V. Pinette, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN & SLOSSBERG, LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Telephone: (203) 877-8000 E-mail: DSlossberg@hss.law JPinette@hss.law - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Breydo Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. The case is styled as Leonid Breydo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-03729-JMY (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. -- https://www.westpharma.com/ -- is a designer and manufacturer of injectable pharmaceutical packaging and delivery systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 E. Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com WILD EGGS: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, See Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Wild Eggs Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01124-SEB-MKK (S.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.wildeggs.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on April 9, 2026, See searched online for brunch restaurants in Indiana. During his search, he discovered the Defendant's website, Wildeggs.com However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that made the site difficult to use and ultimately prevented him from completing the reservation. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to See. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against See 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. See 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 Aaron See is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Wild Eggs Holdings, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to explore a variety of dining options for breakfast, brunch, and lunch, make online orders, and access online waitlist and reservation options, catering services, menu, gift cards, location finder tools, seasonal specials and promotions, nutrition and allergen information, career opportunities, and customer support.[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 WOODFORDS FAMILY: Fails to Secure Personal lnfo, Taylor Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON TAYLOR, on behalf of Minor A.T., and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WOODFORDS FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00284-JCN (D. Maine, May 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On April 8, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity within its network and determined that an unauthorized actor accessed files stored and maintained by Defendant that same day. On or about March 27, 2026, the Defendant began sending individualized Notice of Data Security Incident letter to victims of the Data Incident, informing them that their private information had been compromised in the data incident. According to the complaint, due to Defendant's negligence, unauthorized third parties have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of tens of thousands of individuals including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Class will face an imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for the rest of their lives because Defendant failed to protect Plaintiff's and the Class' private information, allowing a large and preventable Data Incident to occur and Plaintiff and Class Members are at immediate risk of experiencing misuse of their private information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose Private information was exposed in the data incident. Woodford Family Services is a provider of community-based services to individuals with special needs and their families, with educational, clinical & family, and foster care and adoption programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Peter L. Murray, Esq. Richard L. O'Meara, Esq. Meredith K. Cook, Esq. MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY 75 Pearl Street P.O. Box 9785 Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 773-5651 E-mail: pmurray@mpmlaw.com romeara@mpmlaw.com mcook@mpmlaw.com ZEN EDUCATE INC: Lewis Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ebony Lewis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZEN EDUCATE INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV184433 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05337. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com ZULILY LLC: Smith Seesk to Certify Classes of Employees ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify the following classes: 1. December Federal WARN Act Class (Plaintiffs Jittania Smith, Alex Douglas, and Samuel Prestwood as Class Representatives): "All employees of the Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) whose employment was separated on Dec. 13, 2023; (ii) who did not receive 60 days of advance notice of their separation or pay-in-lieu-of-notice; and (iii) who did not continue employment with the Defendant Zulily, LLC as part of its transition into an assignment for the benefit of creditors." 2. October Federal WARN Act Class (Plaintiffs Kathryn Costello and Kirel Ahn as Class Representatives): "All employees of the Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) whose employment was separated on Oct. 25, 2023; and (ii) who did not receive 60 days of advance notice of their separation or pay-in-lieu-ofnotice. 3. Washington State Class (Plaintiffs Jittania Smith and Kathryn Costello as Class Representatives): "All employees of Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Washington at the time of their separation." 4. Ohio State Class (Plaintiffs Alex Douglas and Samuel Prestwood as Class Representatives): "All employees of the Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Ohio at the time of their separation." 5. Nevada State Class (Plaintiff Kirel Ahn as Class Representative): "All employees of the Defendant Zulily, LLC for whom the following is true: (i) who are members of the December Federal WARN Act Class or October Federal WARN Act Class; and (ii) who were living and/or working in the State of Nevada at the time of their separation." The prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ P. 23(a) are satisfied, and the classes can be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Additionally, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint them as class representatives as specified above. Finally, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint Jason E. Starling and John C. Camillus as class counsel with Jason A. Rittereiser continuing to serve as local counsel Zulily was an online retailer of women's clothing, fashion, and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dkGVi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason E. Starling, Esq. STARLING | LAW 9482 Wedgewood Boulevard, Suite 100 Powell, OH 43065 Telephone: (614) 683-6773 E-mail: jason@starling-law.com - and - Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 838-2504 Facsimile: (206) 260-3055 E-mail: jrittereiser@hkm.com - and - John C. Camillus, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. CAMILLUS, LLC Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 992-1000 Facsimile: (614) 559-6731 E-mail: jcamillus@camilluslaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***