260616.mbx

260616.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 16, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 119 Headlines 1ST RESPONSE: Underpays Emergency Medical Technicians, Kemper Says 72 ASSOCIATES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Sued Over Bylaws' Director Removal Provision ALASKA: Mary B. Appeals Court Judgment in Civil Suit to 9th Circuit ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Cobb Class Suit Over Trade Assurance Policy AMAZON RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Chicas Due July 2 AMERICAN ARBITRATION: Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 8, 2027 AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hanson Due Dec. 1 AMERICAN INCOME: Jacobs Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. AMERICAN SOCIAL: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Paz Claims AON CORP: Clayton Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses APPLE NEW JERSEY: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Maurer Claims ARCTIC COOL: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class BARCLAYS PLC: Participated in Sex Trafficking Enterprise, Suit Says BEACH BUNNY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cruz Alleges BEAMS AMERICA: Faces Ford Suit Over Website's Access Barriers BILLY GRAHAM: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Barton Suit Seeks Class Certification BNSF RAILWAY: Vandermeulen Files Suit Over FMLA Violation BREWED TO SERVE: Lange Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tipped Staff BURGER KING: Buckholtz Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA C&G EYE: Agnone Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Savoy's Bid for Class Certification Tossed CAMBIA HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Garcia Due March 16, 2027 CANYON BICYCLES: Class Cert Bid in Nocchiero Suit Due Nov. 6 CANYON BICYCLES: Class Cert. Discovery in Nocchiero Due Oct. 2 CANYON COFFEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Alleges CAPITAL ONE: Faces Woolever Suit Over ECOA Violations CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harvin Suit Due Dec. 11 CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jennings Suit Due Dec. 11 CASA TUA: General Pretrial Management Entered in Freddit Suit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cato Says CHICO'S DISTRIBUTION: Conceals Online Handling Fees, Terteryan Says CLARITY TELECOM: Carey Sues Over Unprotected Private Information COMPASS GROUP: Appeals Reconsideration Order in Mehlberg Suit COVE DRINKS: Williams Balks at Mislabeled Probiotic Sodas CREDIT CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 11, 2027 CROCS INC: Mongalo Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal CROCS INC: Mongalo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes CURIO EMPLOYER: Court Continues Deadlines in Sanchez Suit CUSTOM BUILDING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CVR MANAGEMENT INC: Gallegos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. D.S.A. SPORTS INC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend ERISA Fiduciary Class Suit DELTA DENTAL: Daniel Meir Klein Suit Removed to C.D. California DELTA DENTAL: Jeffrey Fritz Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hilaire Claims DOXIM INC: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification EARLY AUTUMN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Corbett Alleges EAST WEST: Intercept Web Users' Communications, Dawkins Alleges ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties Seek to File Portion of Docs Under Seal ERMI LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wilkie Suit Alleges ERMI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Rafiq Alleges ERMI LLC: ODonnell Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Durand Says EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT: Alcantar Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Workers EXAMWORKS LLC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply FCA US: Request for Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Bid Nixed FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Class Cert in Polak Due Nov. 2 FLORIDA EAST: Faces Fisher Suit Over Synthetic Fragranced Products FLORIDA: Maron Seeks Class Certification FRUIT DYNAMICS: Joseph Suit Seeks Back Pay After Mass Layoff FULLEST CO: Faces Garcia Over Automatic Renewing Paid Subscription FUTURE OF LATINX: Sanchez Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal GABRIEL BROS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wilson Claims GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Basma Suit Over Stock Price Decline GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER: Jenkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT GKN AEROSPACE: Faces Amin Suit Over Forced Home Evacuation GOPHER RESOURCE: Removes Verstraete Suit to D. Minn. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to File Docs Under Seal HAMILTON COMMONS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges HEALTHTRAX FITNESS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Shell Says HEALTHYLINE HOLDING: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HEATHER HILL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for August 6 HENRY ROSE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hippe Suit Due Oct. 1 HOLLYWOOD FASHION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says HOME EXPRESS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Valdivia Due Oct. 23 HOMEAGLOW INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges HOMETAP EQUITY: Faces Suit Over Home Loans' Deceptive Scheme HOUSTON EYE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scott-Compton Alleges HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due Oct. 23 HYATT HOTELS: Kovacs Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragrance Products I.A.C. INC: Davis Files Suit in D. Connecticut I.A.C. INC: Downs Files Suit in D. Connecticut I.A.C. INC: Miechur Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info I.A.C. INC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Ruz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California INDIGO WILD: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Soto Says INVIDA FINANCIAL: Filing Deadline for Class Cert Bid Continued IROBOT CORP: Taylor Files Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme J M SMUCKER: Continues to Defend False Advertising Class Suits J.B. HUNT: Faces Barker Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge JAMES CRESS: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind JCR HOLDINGS: Villaverde Files Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls JOCKO FUEL: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Must File Response to Prelim. Injunction Bid JOYCOAST LLC: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website K-LA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Conner Suit Claims KASHYAP PATEL: More Time to File Class Certification Sought KASSATEX INC: Villaverde Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls KENTUCKY INDUSTRIAL: Morgan Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery KENTUCKY: Huffman Appeals Reconsideration Order to 6th Circuit KREBS BREWING: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store LAGUNA BEACH: Civil Standing Order entered in Breit Class Suit LALTITUDE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says LANCASTER COUNTY, PA: Kling Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification LEAGUE OUTFITTERS: Wilson sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Drinkwater Sues Over Consumer Report Violation LEPRINO FOODS: $283K Settlement in Dominguez Gets Final Nod LIBERTY MUTUAL: Plastic Surgery Class Suit Removed to D.N.J. LIME ROCK: Chastain Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement LOAN STORE: Dukes Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Account Specialists LPL FINANCIAL: Nietz Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty LUCID GROUP: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for July 30 LUME DEODORANT: Navarrete Files Suit Over ARL Violation LYFT INC: Bid to Dismiss Zigler Suit Tossed MAPLE AVENUE: Cole Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA MARSHA MCLANE: Court Dismisses Richards Suit META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Schuman Tossed MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Six Classes MILTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Eagle Spirit Sues Over Unlawful STR Ordinance MONSANTO CO: Bid to Stay King Case Filed Pending JPML Ruling MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Waldrop Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Vanweerdhuizen Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicides NAB-CW LLC: Cordiota Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order NASCO INDUSTRIAL: Cox Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA NATIONAL EWP: Adams Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification NAVER CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2027 NAVIENT CORPORATION: Bid to Exclude Ang's Expert Report Tossed NETWORK HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Thomas Alleges NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Henson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info NEW YORK, NY: Z.Q. Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NIKE INC: Wiretaps Website Users' Communication, Hartigan Alleges NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Sets Scheduling Conference for July 27 NULASTIN INC: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Message Sales Calls NUTRIEN AG: Faces Live Suit Over NPK Fertilizers' Inflated Prices NUTRIEN AG: Live Oak Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-fixing OHIO: Fails to Provide Access to Academic Curriculum, B.H. Says OMNI HOTELS: Biscaha Sues Over Unwanted Sales Calls PALESTINIAN YOUTH: Helmann Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit PAVE IT FORWARD: Letendre Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Layoff PENNSYLVANIA: Restricts Veterans Service, Doe Suit Alleges PEPSICO INC: Darr Sues Over Gatorade's Deceptive Labeling PLAZA HOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grubb Says PREMIUM BRANDS: Eugenio and Yogev Sue Over Privacy Law Violations PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Hooks Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. QUALITY BUILDING: Bravo Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL RAY MARKS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges RCI INTERNET: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McFadden Says RED FERN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Perez Says RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Wins Class Certification Bid ROBERT BOSCH: Conspires to Fix HVAC Equipment Prices, Palomino Says ROBERT LUNA: Steward Third Class Cert Bid Tossed ROBERTO'S DETAILING: Faces Legate Suit Over Unpaid Overtime & Tips ROCKET COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits ROSEMONT HOTELS: Uses Synthetic Fragrances in Hotels, Kramer Claims SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Dunn Sues Over Sensitive Information Disclosure SECURITY USA: Joseph Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation SHELL CHEMICAL: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order SISTONE INC: Garcia-Lara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SKIN SPA NEW YORK: Rene Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation SODEXO SA: Class Cert Opposition in Platt Suit Due June 29 SONIDA SENIOR: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Charter Amendment SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR: Avila-Soto Seeks OK of Class Action Notice SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Hudson Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia STACKADAPT INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California STANDARD INSURANCE: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATION CASINOS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ferretta Says STATION FILM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Yearwood Due Nov. 14 STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Conklin Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Hampton Suit Over Compromised User Data STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Says STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gonzalez Says STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says SUN LIFE: Kelly Balks at Reduction of Disability Insurance Benefits SUPERFOODS INC: Sued for Unlawful Automatic Subscription Renewal SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Sought TAX GROUP: Class Certification Discovery Due Sept. 30 TENNESSEE: Sec. 1 of H.B. 1704 Violates Supremacy Clause, Suit Says TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shah Suit Alleges TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Parker Says TEXAS CAPITAL: Wilk Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info THC ORANGE COUNTY: Must Oppose Rehan Class Cert Bid by June 19 TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Kang Alleges TRI-TECH LABORATORIES: Swick Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages TUTERA SENIOR: Nash Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nursing Assistants TWIN ANGELS: Underpays Home Care Aides, McGill Suit Claims UBIQUITI INC: Faces Higgins Class Suit Over Tariff Surcharges UNIFIRST CORP: Rodgers Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties UNION PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim Tossed UNITED STATES: Logan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit UNITED STATES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Inoa Suit UNITED STATES: Subpoenas Overreach of Governmental Power, Suit Says UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Soto Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS: Franklin Sues Over Breach of Clients' Data VERIFIED CREDENTIALS: Watson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA VIENNA BEEF: Underpays Quality Assurance Technicians, Williams Says WASHINGTON POTATO: Faces Lohuis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wash. WEEM LLC: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store WORKWISE SOLUTIONS: Intercepts User Data Without Consent, Suit Says X CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Ye Suit Set for June 29, 2027 ********* 1ST RESPONSE: Underpays Emergency Medical Technicians, Kemper Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIANA KEMPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST RESPONSE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00220 (W.D. Tex., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an advanced emergency medical technician (A-EMT) in and around Midland and Crane County, Texas since approximately February 2022. 1st Response LLC is a medical transportation company headquartered in Midland, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com 72 ASSOCIATES: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an Individual, & THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT, INC., a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation, v. 72 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:26-cv-06552 (D.N.J., June 4, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property is a shopping center/plaza with several tenant spaces, known as Stafford Square, located within Ocean County. The Defendant's alleged inaccessible commercial property is located in and does business within this judicial district. Mr. Maurer, is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. Mr. Maurer has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of his major life activities including, but not limited to, not being able to walk, stand, reach, or lift. Mr. Maurer, at all times, requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. The Independence Project is a non-profit organization whose members include disabled individuals residing across the country. 72 Associates owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiffs to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Sued Over Bylaws' Director Removal Provision ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN JONES, Plaintiff v. ALARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2026-0726 (Del. Ch., June 3, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the Defendant, for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common law. According to the complaint, a certain provision of the Company's certificate of incorporation and bylaws, adopted and maintained by Defendant, provides that the Company's directors may be removed from office only with cause, contrary to Delaware law. In Delaware, any director or the entire board of directors of a corporation may be removed with or without cause unless an exception applies. The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Removal Provision violates Delaware law, is void and is therefore invalid and unenforceable. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office located in Tysons, Virginia. It is presently listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market and its common stock trades under the symbol "ALRM." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (203) 883-2170 E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com ALASKA: Mary B. Appeals Court Judgment in Civil Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY B., by their next friend Bonnie Yazzie, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Mary B., by their next friend Bonnie Yazzie, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kim Guay, Director, Office of Children's Services, in her official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The suit is brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations. On May 11, 2026, Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. The appellate case is styled as B., et al. v. Guay, et al., Case No. 26-3606, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 4, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 14, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY B., by their next friend Bonnie Yazzie, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Julia Tebor, Esq. A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16 New York, NY 10017 - and - David Baloche, Esq. Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 420 Lexington Avenue, Room 2035 New York, NY 10170 - and - Elena Romerdahl, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1029 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 - and - Colleen M. Koch, Esq. Galen D. Bellamy, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Defendants-Appellees KIM GUAY, Director, Office of Children's Services, in her official capacity, et al. are represented by: Katherine Demarest, Esq. Jennifer Teitell, Esq. Margaret Paton-Walsh, Esq. ALASKA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Cobb Class Suit Over Trade Assurance Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Cobb, Senad Djulamerovic, Peter Hunt, Adnan Merdach, and Steven Poslof, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, ALIBABA GROUP (US) INC., ALIBABA.COM US LLC, ALIBABA.COM US E-COMMERCE CORP., and CAINIAO SMART LOGISTICS NETWORK LIMITED, Case No. 5:26-cv-05292 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) challenges the fundamentally illusory nature of Alibaba's Trade Assurance Policy and Alibaba Guaranteed. According to the complaint, Alibaba represents that these assurances and guarantees provide meaningful contractual protections and recourse for buyers in connection with their purchases from third-party sellers. Such protections expressly include refunds and compensation for various order issues. To distinguish itself from those competitors and attract buyers to its platform, Alibaba.com established and touted so-called "buyer protection services", that would, Alibaba claimed, mitigate risks associated with the global trade occurring on Alibaba.com. These services, identified by Alibaba as "Alibaba Trade Assurance" and "Alibaba Guaranteed", are prominently advertised to buyers and referenced consistently and frequently on Alibaba.com. Alibaba.com -- often called The Amazon of China -- is a global e-commerce marketplace and platform where third party merchants sell their products to buyers in the United States and around the world. Alibaba.com (and its affiliated sites) is owned and operated by Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. In September 2014, Alibaba Group went public with a record-breaking $21.8 billion initial public offering -- then the largest in IPO history -- trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "BABA."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beena M. McDonald, Esq. Kimberly Donaldson-Smith, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: bmm@chimicles.com kmds@chimicles.com AMAZON RETAIL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Chicas Due July 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN CHICAS, an individual; and RITA TALBERT, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10306-FMO-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order granting the stipulation to extend time for plaintiff to file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. The Court orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiff Rita Talbert shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement by no later than July 2, 2026; and 2. The Plaintiff Rita Talbert and Defendant Amazon Retail LLC shall comply with all of the Court's procedures regarding the motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement, except that the filing deadline shall be July 2, 2026, rather than June 4, 2026. Amazon offers a wide array of products, including electronics, books, and groceries. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSilIK at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN ARBITRATION: Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 8, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Stephens, et al., v. American Arbitration Association Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-01650-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Tuchi entered a Rule 16 scheduling order. -- All Initial Disclosures as defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), if not already disclosed prior to the Scheduling Conference, shall be made no later than June 16, 2026. -- Motions to amend the Complaint and to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Sept. 18, 2026. -- Fact discovery shall be completed by May 14, 2027. -- All parties shall disclose the identity of all persons whom they may call at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, 704, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.) no later than June 18, 2027. All parties shall disclose the identity of all persons providing rebuttal expert testimony no later than July 23, 2027. These disclosures shall be full and complete as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(C). -- All discovery must be completed by Sept. 3, 2027, including depositions of parties, witnesses and experts; answers to interrogatories; and supplements to interrogatory answers. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due no later than Oct. 8, 2027. The Defendant's response due no later than Nov. 9, 2027. The Plaintiff's reply due no later than Dec. 9, 2027. The Defendant is a provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=22EQqv at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hanson Due Dec. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON C. HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00283-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an interim scheduling order as follows: 1. Any motion to join additional parties or amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before July 20, 2026. 2. All discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before March 15, 2027. 3. The Plaintiff shall designate experts by Jan. 4, 2027. The Defendant shall designate experts by Feb. 4, 2027. 4. The Plaintiff's motion for certification of class action shall be filed on or before Dec. 1, 2026. The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class shall be due 21 days after the motion for class certification is filed. The Plaintiff's reply shall be due ten days thereafter. 5. All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before April 15, 2027, but nothing precludes a party from filing a dispositive motion before the deadline. The Defendant is a mortgage banker in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bVApw at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN INCOME: Jacobs Labor Suit Removed to D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------- The case JORDAN JACOBS, JOE SALVO, ANTHONY SOLANO, and RACHEL SQUIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GIGLIONE-ACKERMAN AGENCY, LLC, ERIC GIGLIONE, and DAVID ACKERMAN, Case No. MID-L-003068-26, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 5, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06618 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged wage-and-hour violations. American Income Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Texas. Giglione-Ackerman Agency, LLC is an insurance firm based in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Dee, Esq. O'TOOLE SCRIVO 14 Village Park Road Cedar Grove, NJ 07009 Telephone: (973) 559-9813 Facsimile: (973) 239-3400 Email: mdee@oslaw.com AMERICAN SOCIAL: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Paz Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN PAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SOCIAL HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, AMERICAN SOCIAL BRICKELL, LLC, AMERICAN SOCIAL BOCA RATON, LLC, AMERICAN SOCIAL ORLANDO, LLC, AMERICAN SOCIAL TAMPA, LLC, and AMERICAN SOCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-61635 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal tip pool collective, and unpaid meetings collective. The Plaintiff was employed as a server and bartender at American Social's Miami (Brickell) location at 690 SW 1st Court, Miami, Florida from approximately May 2025. American Social Hospitality Group, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. American Social Brickell, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. American Social Boca Raton, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. American Social Orlando, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. American Social Tampa, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. American Social Management, LLC is an owner and operator of American Social Bar & Kitchen restaurant in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com AON CORP: Clayton Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN CLAYTON, EUJUNE KIM, JASON KLEE, DARLENE LEHMAN, AND SVITLANA MALENFANT Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, on Behalf of the AON SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs v. AON CORPORATION, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AON PLC and its members, and the AON RETIREMENT PLAN GOVERNANCE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and its members, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06026 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2026) for breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants--the Aon Savings Plan's fiduciaries--breached their duties by: (1) retaining underperforming investment options--(i) the Vanguard U.S. All Company Portfolio (US ACP); and (ii) the Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund, and together with US ACP, the "Subject Funds")--for the Plan between 2019 and 2025, despite more suitable U.S. multi-cap, large growth/large blend funds having been readily available; and (2) failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for administration and management of the Plan's actions in retaining the imprudent subject funds as investments for the Plan. As a result of Defendants' breaches and imprudent investment decisions, the Plan and its participants lost more than $120 million in assets, says the suit. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Aon Corporation provides professional services including insurance and reinsurance brokerage, human capital and benefits consulting, wealth and retirement solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2121 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 E-mail: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com - and - Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Nicolas Kravitz, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. Alexander L. Burns, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 648-1842 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com nicolas.kravitz@ksfcounsel.com john.carriel@ksfcounsel.com alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, ANGELA STEVENS, JESSICA JACKSON, MELISSA OATMAN, JUSTIN REVELO, and TAYLOR VALL, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rosenstengel entered an order certifying the following classes under Rule 23(b)(3): Local Device Class "Every Illinois citizen whose Apple Device put a photograph of that citizen into a People album at any time between Sept. 13, 2016, and the present." iCloud Subclass "Every Illinois citizen who had an Apple Device with a People album tagged with that citizen's name or other identifier, and had an iCloud account enabled for photo storage, at any time between Sept. 13, 2016, and the present." iCloud Faceprint Subclass "Every Illinois citizen who had an Apple Device running iOS 17.6, MacOS Sonoma 14.6 or iPadOS 17.6 or later and: (1) had iCloud photo library enabled with at least 10 gigabytes of storage, and (2) their Apple Device put a photograph of that citizen into a People album, and (3) who had 5,000 or more assets (i.e., photos and videos) in their iCloud photo library, at any time between March 25, 2025 and the present (inclusive)." The Court appoints Schlichter Bogard LLP, and co-counsel, Montroy Law Offices, LLC, as class counsel. The named Plaintiffs are designated as class representatives. Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, their motion for class certification is granted. The Court disagrees that a class would be unmanageable. As the Plaintiffs assert, a combination of Apple's Illinois customer lists, iCloud enrollees, and user declarations can identify the class members. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") when it collected and possessed the biometric identifiers and biometric information of Illinois citizens via the People album feature of the Photos app found on Apple devices without providing those citizens with the required disclosures or obtaining written consent. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UvKWXC at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE NEW JERSEY: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Maurer Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE NEW JERSEY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06533 (D.N.J., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New Jersey Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such entrance access, parking areas, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Apple New Jersey LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in Mays Landing, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com ARCTIC COOL: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCTIC COOL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04754 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.arcticcool.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Arctic Cool, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 BANK OF AMERICA: Pfeffer Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL PFEFFER, DAVID DESSNER, ADAM SHERMAN, FRANK CRONIN, ROGER ROJAS, JASON AUERBACH, GRACE BOZICK, MUHAMED VRLAKU and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00813-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following classes: i. "All persons employed by Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A.'s ("Defendant" or "Bank of America") in any of the following Job Titles/Job Codes: Enterprise Lending Officer/Sr. Lending Officer (job code SM172), Sr. Wealth Management Lending Officer - Reg. (job code SM603), Sr. Wealth Management Lending Officer (job code SM604), WM Lending Officer (job code SM605), Sr. Financial Center Lending Officer – E (job code SM610), and/or Sr. PB Wealth Management lending Officer (job code SM618) (collectively, "Loan Officers") in the State of New York at any time between Nov. 30, 2017 and the present (the "New York Class")"; and ii. "All persons employed by the Defendants as Loan Officers in the State of New Jersey at any time between Aug. 6, 2019 and the present (the "New Jersey Class"); 2. Naming Plaintiffs Adam Sherman, Frank Cronin and Roger Rojas as Class Representatives of the New York Class and naming Muhamed Vrlaku as Class Representative of the New Jersey Class; and 3. Appointing Lax, Neville, & Intelisano, LLP as Class Counsel to the New York Class and New Jersey Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xte9Z7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Wellman, Esq. TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP 4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 450 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 719-4734 Facsimile: (919) 873-1814 E-mail: JWellman@teaguecampbell.com - and - Barry R. Lax, Esq. LAX & NEVILLE, LLP 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 696-1999 Facsimile: (212) 566-4531 E-mail: blax@laxneville.com BARCLAYS PLC: Participated in Sex Trafficking Enterprise, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARCLAYS PLC, a public limited company; JAMES E. STALEY, an individual; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01377 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act arising out of the Defendants' support, facilitation, and participation of a sex trafficking enterprise's sex trafficking crimes and financial crimes. STALEY was the Chief Executive Officer of BARCLAYS. Before STALEY was employed by BARCLAYS, he was the Chief Executive Officer of J.P. Morgan Chase. On information and belief, STALEY and J.P. Morgan Chase parted ways in the aftermath of the public revelations exposing his relationship and complicity in the Sex Trafficking Enterprise of Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts and accomplices. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly received substantial value and other material benefits from supporting, facilitating, and otherwise participating in sex trafficking crimes and financial crimes, orchestrated by the Sex Trafficking Enterprise venture, and aided and abetted by co-conspirators. The Defendants knew or should have known that the financial crimes committed by the Sex Trafficking Enterprise served to enable and otherwise facilitate the sex trafficking crimes to which Plaintiff and all those similarly situated fell victim. The Defendants provided the most critical services and assistance to the Sex Trafficking Enterprise, thereby enabling it to prosper and expand its agendas globally to the devastation and detrimental harm of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, including young females and males, says the suit. The Plaintiff is and was, at all relevant times, an individual residing in California who was victimized by the Defendants. Given the nature and severity of the allegations herein and in the interest of Plaintiff's recognized privacy rights, and to avoid being stigmatized, the Plaintiff rightfully pursues this action under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." Barclays PLC is a global financial institution that transacts substantial business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Y. Lazo, Esq. Alexander A. Powers, Esq. POWERHOUSE LEGAL, P.C. 21163 Newport Coast Dr. #245 Newport Beach, CA 92657 Telephone: (949) 791-4050 Facsimile: (949) 791-4224 BEACH BUNNY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cruz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beach Bunny Swimwear, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00988-JPS (E.D. Wisc., June 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Website, https://www.beachbunnyswimwear.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is an online platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services offered by the Defendant. The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view a comprehensive selection of women's swimwear, related apparel, and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law BEAMS AMERICA: Faces Ford Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEAMS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06578 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://beams-america.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate alt text on graphics, ambiguous link texts, 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. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Beams America, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BILLY GRAHAM: Conner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONNER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. BILLY GRAHAM EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00400-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., May 22, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Bookstore.BillyGraham.org to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, owns and operates the Ruth's Attic Bookstore and the website which offers goods and services offered to the public by its physical bookstore, including, the ability to learn about and receive Billy Graham Library services, the ability to learn about the Evangelical books, DVDs, CDs, unique gifts, collectibles, home decor, and apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Telephone: (704) 814-0729 Facsimile: (704) 814-0730 E-mail: srg@gohillaw.com - and - Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Barton Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. BRUCE BARTON, and RESHARD SNELLINGS on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs seeks to entere an order granting class certification and appointing Dr. Bruce Barton and Reschard Snellings as class representatives and Nagel Rice, LLP as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In support of the class certification motion and request for appointment of class representatives and class counsel, the Plaintiffs shall rely upon the Brief in support of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and the declaration of Lisa R. Considine, Esq. with attached exhibits submitted herewith. BMW manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells first-class automobile. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pveq5e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com lconsidine@nagelrice.com ddisabato@nagelrice.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. Melissa Jean Bayly, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC 550 Broad Street, Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 424-5604 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com melissa.bayly@bipc.com BNSF RAILWAY: Vandermeulen Files Suit Over FMLA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Josh Vandermeulen and Jon Caraway, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, Plaintiffs vs. BNSF Railway Co., Defendant, Case No. 25-3274 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). The complaint relates that BNSF is one of the largest railroads in the United States. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. That means BNSF's employees may be called to perform work at any time of day (or night) on any day of the year. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class work on trains as conductors and engineers, and in other similar positions. BNSF calls these employees "Train, Yard, and Engine" or "TYE" employees. BNSF's TYE employees overwhelmingly work on an on-call basis. BNSF uses a crew management software system called the "Workforce System" to staff its trains. Employees mark off, making them unavailable for work, for a variety of reasons. To mark off, an employee typically logs into BNSF's Workforce System and marks off. Employees may also mark off to take FMLA leave, if eligible to do so. When employees mark off for FMLA leave, they are removed from the on-call list. Once the period of FMLA leave is over, employees are marked back up and placed at the bottom of the on-call list. In this way, employees who use FMLA leave effectively lose their place in line. This policy of moving employees who take FMLA leave to the bottom of the on-call list has an actual and substantial effect of reducing the hours of work -- and thus the take-home pay -- for employees who take FMLA leave. In addition to miscalculating the amount of FMLA leave available to its employees, BNSF also punishes employees who take FMLA leave, adds the complaint. BNSF's violations of the FMLA are willful and ongoing. Plaintiffs and class members have been adversely affected by these policies. BNSF's breach has caused Plaintiffs harm, prohibiting them from taking care of their family members, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring FMLA claims against BNSF, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, along with back pay and other monetary and compensatory relief. Plaintiff Josh Vandermeulen was a train conductor who worked for BNSF for 11 years. Plaintiff Jon Caraway is a train engineer who has worked for BNSF for 14 years. Defendant BNSF Railway Co. is one of six Class I railroads, the largest freight rail operators in the United States. BNSF provides freight rail transportation services across much of the western two-thirds of the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW 323 N Washington Ave Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (757) 477-0991 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law BREWED TO SERVE: Lange Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Tipped Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON LANGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BREWED TO SERVE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., PEACHTREE BAKER LLC d/b/a WHITE OAK KITCHEN & COCKTAILS, CINDY LeBLANC, and ALAN LeBLANC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03182-TWT (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lange was employed by the Defendants as a tipped employee. Brewed to Serve Restaurant Group, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in Georgia. Peachtree Baker LLC, doing business as White Oak Kitchen & Cocktails, is a restaurant owner and operator based in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John L. Mays, Esq. Carter A. Augustine, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, PC 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com caugustine@pcwlawfirm.com BURGER KING: Buckholtz Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE BUCKHOLTZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BURGER KING COMPANY LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:26-cv-61630 (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2026) seeks for unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff an hourly wage of $13.00. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee and typically worked 40 hours or more per week. However, the Defendant intentionally adjusted the Plaintiff's hours to remove hours that she worked in order to avoid paying Plaintiff overtime. Specifically, the Defendant's managers systematically altered/reduced work hours for Plaintiff and other hourly paid crew members, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from March 2023 through June 2025 as a crew member. The Defendant is a national fast-food franchise which primarily serves burgers, French fries, sodas and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mert Atmaca, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: Matmaca@theleachfirm.com Cleach@theleachfirm.com C&G EYE: Agnone Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. C&G Eye Wear USA, Inc.,Case No. 2:26-cv-03367 (E.D.N.Y., Ill., June 4, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Sanita.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Haspel's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT: Savoy's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY JOSPEH LAWRENCE SAVOY, V. CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:26-cv-00664-CJB-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Donna Phillips Currault recommended that Plaintiff Bradley Joseph Lawrence Savoy's request for class certification be denied. The Court further recommended that the Plaintiff's individual claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Pro se Plaintiff is not a proper class representative. Further, federal question jurisdiction is absent given the patently frivolous nature of his section1983 claims against private individuals that fail to identify any alleged constitutional injury. Even if the claim were not patently frivolous, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, The Plaintiff, a resident of Louisiana, filed a Complaint individually and on behalf of a nationwide class against Ceasar's Entertainment, Inc., Harrah's New Orleans Casino, Boyd Gaming Corporation, Treasure Chest Casino, and "all Casinos operating in the United States that issue player cards and paper tickets" seeking relief, including "$3,500 per player card holder per casino nationwide," and requesting class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He alleges that "Harrah's/Caesars" in New Orleans removed him from the casino based on false, pretextual allegations of threats in November 2024, and on March 26, 2026, employees of Treasure Chest "threatened" him "with accusations of theft" of a ticket he lawfully obtained. Caesars is an American hotel and casino entertainment company. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mL7Ph6 at no extra charge.[CC] CAMBIA HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Garcia Due March 16, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER GARCIA, v. CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-05263-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion March 16, 2027 for class certification: (noted 21 days after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda): Opposition to motion to certify class: May 11, 2027 Reply in support of motion to certify June 8, 2027 class: Hearing on motion to certify class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class certification. Cambia operates as a non profit healthcare solutions company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jkVt86 at no extra charge.[CC] CANYON BICYCLES: Class Cert Bid in Nocchiero Suit Due Nov. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER NOCCHIERO, et al., v. CANYON BICYCLES USA, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-04066-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder: July 24, 2026 Close of Discovery: Oct. 2, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 6, 2026 certification: The Defendants' opposition to the Dec. 4, 2026 motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Dec. 18, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for Jan. 21, 2027, class certification: at 2:00 p.m. The Court further lifts the discovery stay and confirms, as noted at the case management conference, that class certification and merits discovery are not bifurcated. Canyon is a direct-to-consumer bicycle company specializing in high-performance road, mountain, gravel, and e-bikes. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vgCsyT at no extra charge.[CC] CANYON BICYCLES: Class Cert. Discovery in Nocchiero Due Oct. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER NOCCHIERO and CHAD TIMMINS, v. CANYON BICYCLES USA, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-04066-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter scheduling order as follows: a. Class certification discovery completed by Oct. 2, 2026; b. The Plaintiffs' brief in support of their motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 6, 2026; c. The Defendants' opposition brief on class certification shall be filed by Dec. 4, 2026; d. The Plaintiffs' reply brief on class certification shall be filed by Dec. 18, 2026; e. Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be on or before Jan. 22, 2026. The Parties disagree as to what extent the discovery stay is still in effect: Plaintiffs contend it is no longer in effect and that the Court has not bifurcated discovery as between class and merits; Defendant contends that discovery remains stayed pursuant to the Court's April 23, 2026 Order, which temporarily stayed discovery until otherwise ordered, and given that the Court has directed the parties only to submit a class certification schedule, the stay should be lifted solely for the purpose of class certification discovery. The Defendant is a direct-to-consumer bicycle company specializing in high-performance road, mountain, gravel, and e-bikes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XBLft2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq. PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE & CARLIN LLP 39 Mesa Street, Suite 202 – The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 398-0900 Facsimile: (415) 398-0911 E-mail: nac@phillaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gayle R. Klein, Esq. Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Robert Mccallum, Esq. Elizabeth V. Curran, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP One Bush Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: gayle.klein@freshfields.com justina.sessions@freshfields.com rob.mccallum@freshfields.com elizabeth.curran@freshfields.com CANYON COFFEE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. CANYON COFFEE LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04665 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its commercial website, www.canyoncoffee.co to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including February 9, 2026 and February 15, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Coffee from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Coffee, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant’s: coffee products and gifts, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase Coffee. Plaintiff attempted to purchase Coffee but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant’s Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAPITAL ONE: Faces Woolever Suit Over ECOA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- SHARON WOOLEVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00516-REP (E.D. Va., June 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Capital One, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan M. Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC 2290 East Speedway Boulevard Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (602) 807-1504 Facsimile: (480) 613-7733 Email: srotkis@consumerjustice.com CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Harvin Suit Due Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARVIN, et al., v. CARVANA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02068-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 2. The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) on Rule 23 issues shall be due Sept. 14, 2026. 3. The Defendants' expert report(s) on Rule 23 issues shall be due Oct. 15, 2026. 4. Expert discovery on Rule 23 issues shall close on Nov. 16, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due Dec. 11, 2026. 6. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due Jan. 22, 2027. 7. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification shall be due Feb. 5, 2027. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PvrX1I at no extra charge.[CC] CARVANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jennings Suit Due Dec. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNINGS, et al., v. CARVANA, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-05400-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 2. The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) on Rule 23 issues shall be due Sept. 14, 2026. 3. The Defendants' expert report(s) on Rule 23 issues shall be due Oct. 15, 2026. 4. Expert discovery on Rule 23 issues shall close on Nov. 16, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due Dec. 11, 2026. 6. The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due Jan. 22, 2027. 7. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification shall be due Feb. 5, 2027. Carvana offers new and used cars and vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahu9sU at no extra charge.[CC] CASA TUA: General Pretrial Management Entered in Freddit Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA FREDDI, v. CASA TUA NYC, LLC, doing business as CASA TUA NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04067-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. Casa Tua operates as a hotel and restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jS67XB at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cato Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS CATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00893 (D. Conn., June 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed its legal obligations to safeguard the Sensitive Private Information entrusted to it by inadequately implemented data security measures and allowed the information of approximately 42 million of its customers to be stolen by cybercriminals. On or around 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 (the Data Breach). In that capacity, Charter has directly and indirectly collected highly sensitive personally identifiable information such as customer proprietary network information, customer names, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers, phone type, billing information, and plan information from tens of millions of customers. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendant with a vast array of such Sensitive Private Information. Taking reasonable, standard precautions against cybercrime and data breaches is a fundamental part of doing business in the modern age -- especially for businesses in the telecommunications sector that routinely collect and store confidential information like the Sensitive Private Information at issue here, says the suit. Charter is a telecommunication and media company in the United Sates providing broadband Internet, cable television, mobile, and voice services to residential and business customers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, 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 ebinder@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com CHICO'S DISTRIBUTION: Conceals Online Handling Fees, Terteryan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- EMMA TERTERYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHICO'S DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06079 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"). This action challenges Chico's practice of imposing a hidden processing ("handling") charge on consumers who purchase merchandise through its Websites. When a consumer browses the Websites, Chico's displays product prices that do not reflect the full cost of the transaction. It is not until the consumer has selected an item, chosen a size (and color, if applicable), added the product to a bag, and proceeds to their shopping bag to checkout, that Chico's informs them that the Shipping fee is actually a "Shipping & Processing" fee, which includes internal handling costs that California law requires to be disclosed in the advertised price. According to the complaint, Chico's Websites display thousands of apparel products such as shirts, pants, dresses, jackets, accessories, each accompanied by an advertised price. None of these advertised prices include Chico's' handling charge. On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff visited the White House Black Market Website and purchased a High-Rise Wide Leg Mariner Jean and a Crisscross Halter Vest for a total merchandise price of $224.99. Chico's imposed a combined "Shipping & Processing" fee of $8.95 on top of the displayed merchandise price. Together with $10.72 in sales tax and an additional discount of $115, the total charge was $129.66. The purchase experience Plaintiff encountered is substantially identical to the experience every consumer encounters on Chico's' Websites. Regardless of the product selected, Chico's does not disclose its handling charge until a consumer is checking out, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, and recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of herself and all similarly situated California consumers. Plaintiff Emma Terteryan is a citizen and resident of Santa Clarita, California. Defendant Chico's Distribution Services, LLC operates several brand websites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: 619-353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com CLARITY TELECOM: Carey Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACE CAREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARITY TELECOM, LLC d/b/a BLUEPEAK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02251 (D. Colo., May 22, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On December 11, 2025, the Defendant detected suspicious activity within the computer network. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access to Defendant's network and obtained sensitive data between December 19, 2024, and December 22, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. Headquartered in Denver, CO, Clarity Telecom, LLC offers fiber internet, phone, and related communication services to residential and business customers in parts of South Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com COMPASS GROUP: Appeals Reconsideration Order in Mehlberg Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPASS GROUP USA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Richard L. Mehlberg and Angela R. Deibel, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04179-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's sponsored wellness program that allegedly impose marginally higher health plan premiums on tobacco users without satisfying the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA) statutory and regulatory requirements. On Jan. 16, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Stephen R. Bough granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 9, 2026. On Apr. 21, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Apr. 9 Order, which Judge Bough granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted insofar as the Court's Order is modified and amended to reflect that ERISA Section 413's six-year statute of repose does not apply to the Plaintiffs' Plan Terms Violation Claims. The motion is denied in all other respects. The appellate case is styled as Richard L. Mehlberg and Angela R. Deibel, et al. v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 26-8007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents RICHARD L. MEHLBERG and ANGELA R. DEIBEL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Email: ricke@stuevesiegel.com hanson@stuevesiegel.com wagner@steuvesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, PC The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com Defendant-Petitioner COMPASS GROUP USA, INC. is represented by: Rene E. Thorne, Esq. Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq. Steven A. Sheesley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 208-1755 COVE DRINKS: Williams Balks at Mislabeled Probiotic Sodas --------------------------------------------------------- JACKIE LEE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVE DRINKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03374-H-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Cove probiotic sodas which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because they feature label claims falsely stating that they contain no artificial sweeteners. According to the complaint, the "No Artificial Sweeteners" claim made by Cove on its cans and in its advertising is false. The soda purchased by Plaintiff Williams contains 10 grams of erythritol, and on information and belief, every flavor of the Products contains 8-12 grams of erythritol, generally the second most common ingredient in the Products after water. The Products use erythritol as a sweetener. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's breach of warranty, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured and harmed because: (a) they would not have purchased the Products on the same terms if they knew the truth about the Products; (b) they paid a price premium based on Defendant's warranties; and (c) the Products do not have the characteristics, uses, or benefits that were promised. Cove Drinks, Inc. is a Nova Scotia-founded beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com CREDIT CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 11, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pettway v. Credit Control Services, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-11698 (D. Mass., Filed April 13, 2026), the Hon. Judge entered an order adopting the parties proposed scheduling order and setting the following deadlines: -- Initial Disclosures required by June 30, 2026 -- Amendments to pleadings due no later than August 14, 2026. -- Fact Discovery - Final Deadline: March 12, 2027 -- Expert Discovery deadline: July 12, 2027. -- Plaintiffs motion for class certification: August 11, 2027. -- Dispositive motions, if any, due 45 days after the Court rules on class certification. Oppositions due within 21 days of service of motion. Reply due within 14 days of service of the opposition. -- The parties are directed to confer and submit a joint status report by November 6, 2026. -- The status report shall state: (1) the progress of fact discovery, specifically the status of written discovery, the number of depositions anticipated, noticed, and completed, and any anticipated discovery disputes; (2) whether the parties expect to meet the deadlines in the Courts scheduling order and, if not, why, and (3) whether the parties would like to be referred to alternative dispute resolution or are considering private mediation. (MS) The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). Credit Control is a third-party debt collection agency.[CC] CROCS INC: Mongalo Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE MONGALO, CHELSEA GARLAND, PHILIP WERNER, and MELISSA HARMON, each an individual, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-09037-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal certain portions of the following documents that have been designated as confidential or highly confidential -- attorneys' eyes only by Crocs: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; Supporting exhibits to the declaration of Seth A. Safier; Supporting exhibits to the declaration of Anthony J. Patek; The Declaration of J. Michael Dennis; The Declaration of Colin Weir; The Declaration of Michael Hickner; The Declaration of Steven P. Gaskin; and The Declaration of Jennifer Abshire. Crocs manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam footwear. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqe2VZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com CROCS INC: Mongalo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE MONGALO, CHELSEA GARLAND, PHILIP WERNER, and MELISSA HARMON, each an individual, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-09037-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 20, 2026 at 2:00 p.m., will move, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the following classes: Class: "All persons who purchased, in the state of California, the Products from Crocs and its authorized retailers from Dec. 13, 2020 to the present." Direct Purchase Subclass: "All Class Members who purchased the Products directly from Crocs (either online or in-person) (the "Subclass")." The Class and Subclass will pursue claims against the Defendant on theories that the Defendant's conduct (1) breached an implied warranty of merchantability; (2) violated the Unfair Competition Law; and (3) was deceptive, misleading, and/or fraudulent under the CLRA, the California False Advertising Law, and the common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and omission. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court (1) appoint the Plaintiffs Jacqueline Mongalo, Chelsea Garland, Philip Werner, and Melissa Harmon as class representatives on all claims for the Class, (2) appoint the Plaintiffs Mongalo and Werner as class representatives for all claims for the Subclass, and (3) appoint Gutride Safier LLP as class counsel. The Plaintiffs finally request that the Court order the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class. Crocs allegedly deceived customers by marketing, advertising, and selling defective shoes that shrink upon prolonged exposure to ele vated temperatures. Crocs manufactures and markets the Crocs brand of foam footwear. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkdzNm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com CURIO EMPLOYER: Court Continues Deadlines in Sanchez Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Curio Employer LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01790 (S.D. Cal., Filed July 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order granting Motion to Continue Deadlines. The in-person Discovery Hearing Re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is reset from June 3, 2026 to June 22, 2026. The parties must file a Status Report regarding the status of settlement negotiations, and any updates regarding the pending Motion to Compel, by close of business on June 16, 2026. The deadline for completing class discovery is Reset from June 8, 2026 to June 26, 2026. The Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification is due by close of business on July 24, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Curio is an employer for several hotels within the Curio Collection by Hilton.[CC] CUSTOM BUILDING: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- LAZARO E. BENITEZ MARTINEZ v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and THE QUIKRETE COMPANIES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-23908 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Custom Building Products, LLC. His job duties included transporting construction materials manufactured by Defendants in Florida to Home Depot stores and some independent hardware stores located in Florida. The Plaintiff drove an 18-wheeler 2023 Freightliner truck. The Medley, Florida facility out of which Plaintiff worked is a manufacturing plant at which Defendants manufacture tile-setting mortars, grouts, and related construction materials. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC manufactures building products. The Company offers mud bed and patching compounds, waterproofing membranes and underlayments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC 2745 Ponce de Leon Blvd Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 E-mail: pmh@rgph.law CVR MANAGEMENT INC: Gallegos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVR Management, Inc. The case is styled as Maria De Guadalupe Gallegos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVR Management, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0004343 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." CVR Management, LLC -- https://cvrmanagement.com/ -- is a professional healthcare management company based in Greenbelt, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Haber, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: benjamin@wilshirelawfirm.com D.S.A. SPORTS INC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.S.A. Sports, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Nicholas Lopez, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public v. D.S.A. Sports, Inc., Sports Fever, Case No. 26CUB02147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." D.S.A SPORTS, Inc., doing business as Sports fever -- https://www.sportsfevercal.com/ -- distributes sports apparels and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law - and - Norayr Zakaryan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Ave, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: n.zakaryan@d.law DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend ERISA Fiduciary Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 1, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from ERISA fiduciary class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On January 28, 2026, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in a putative class action captioned Lowbruck et al. v. Dell Technologies Inc., et al., against the Company, the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Dell Benefits Administration Committee alleging a breach of fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). In the complaint, the plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to remove imprudent investments from the Dell 401(k) (“Plan”) in a reasonable time, engaging in transactions allegedly prohibited under ERISA, and failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for the Plan’s administration. The plaintiffs also seek, among other remedies, an award of damages, fees, and costs in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. Dell Technologies is a global technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, and supports a wide range of IT hardware, software, and services for consumers, businesses, and institutional customers. The companys offerings include personal computers, servers, storage solutions, networking products, and cloud and infrastructure solutions. DELTA DENTAL: Daniel Meir Klein Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Meir Klein DDS APC, Garrett Russikoff, D.M.D., Inc., Todd A. Loftin DDS Dental Corporation, and Tom Massart DDS, Dental Corporation, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation, Case No. 26STCV13923 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05974. The Plaintiffs Daniel Meir Klein DDS APC, Garrett Russikoff, D.M.D., Inc., Todd A. Loftin DDS Dental Corporation, and Tom Massart DDS, Dental Corporation--four dental service providers ("Providers") falsely allege that DDC colluded with DDPA, DeltaUSA, and the other 38 DDMCs to suppress the reimbursements that Providers receive for treating Delta Dental insureds in violation of California antitrust and unfair competition law. Although Plaintiffs claim that the challenged conduct applied uniformly throughout the United States, they named only DDC as a Defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Howard M. Ullman, Esq. Russell P. Cohen, Esq. Saxon Cropper-Sykes, Esq. Maggie Maloney, Esq. DECHERT LLP 45 Fremont Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 262-4500 Facsimile: (415) 262-4555 Email: Howard.ullman@dechert.com Russ.cohen@dechert.com Saxon.cropper-sykes@dechert.com Maggie.maloney@dechert.com - and - Allison K. Ozurovich, Esq. DECHERT LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 808-5700 Facsimile: (213) 808-5760 Email: Allie.ozurovich@dechert.com DELTA DENTAL: Jeffrey Fritz Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Fritz, DDS, and Gregory S. Brya, DDS, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MICHIGAN, INC. d/b/a Delta Dental of Michigan, a Michigan corporation, Case No. 26STCV13923 was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit for the State of Michigan, County of Oakland, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-11836-JEL-EAS. The Plaintiffs Jeffrey Fritz and Gregory Brya--two dental service providers ("Providers")--falsely allege that DDMI colluded with DDPA, DeltaUSA, and the other 38 DDMCs to suppress the reimbursements that Providers receive for treating Delta Dental insureds in violation of Michigan antitrust law. Although Plaintiffs claim that the challenged conduct applied uniformly throughout the United States, they only named DDMI as a Defendant.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: L. Pahl Zinn, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 223-3500 Email: pzinn@dickinsonwright.com - and - James A. Martone, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 2600 West Big Beaver, Suite 300 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 433-7200 Email: jmartone@dickinsonwright.com - and - Kathy L. Osborn, Esq. Ryan M. Hurley, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 300 N. Meridian St., Suite 2500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: (317) 237-0300 Email: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com ryan.hurley@faegredrinker.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hilaire Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CARIDAD HILAIRE and TAWANA MCCANTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12513 (D. Mass., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around May 23, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. DentaQuest Group, Inc. is a dental benefits provider based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 Email: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - 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 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com DOXIM INC: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Doxim, Inc. Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-11550-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Berg entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed amended motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were identified by Doxim and who were sent notice by Doxim or Doxim's Credit Union Clients that their Private Information was impacted in the Data Incident." -- Excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons who are: (a) directors, officers, and employees of the Defendants; (b) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; (c) any Settlement Class Member who timely and validly opts-out of the Settlement; and (d) any individual who timely and validly opts-out of the Settlement -- The Plaintiffs Jonathan McKinley, Bruce Narolis, Rose McNichols, Alex Poplawski, Brian Satterwhite, and Thomas Wardrop are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. -- Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Mariya Weekes of Milberg, PLLC, and Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne P.A. are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). -- A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Terrence G. Berg on Oct. 28, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. This case arises from a data incident in which an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant Doxim, Inc.'s network and computer systems on Dec. 30, 2023 and obtained unauthorized access to Doxim's files. Doxim offers solutions for loan origination, customer relationship management, and business analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YoxIDf at no extra charge.[CC] EARLY AUTUMN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Corbett Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Early Autumn, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00514 (W.D. Wis., June 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Website https://www.beekshop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is an online platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services offered by the Defendant. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Wisconsin and throughout the United States. 28) The Website is a commercial platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view leather footwear, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law EAST WEST: Intercept Web Users' Communications, Dawkins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. EAST WEST BANK, a California chartered commercial bank, Case No. 1:26-cv-04273-EGC (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.eastwestbank.com. The website that Defendant owns, operates, and provides the Website for public access and use. The 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. Accordingly, 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 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. The Defendant deploys these interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded, or a user performs a tracked action. When triggered, the pixel causes the user's browser to transmit data to third party servers, including the contents of the user's communications with the Website such as page URLs identifying what the user is browsing, page titles, and referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation. The Plaintiff is a California citizen residing in Tulare County, California, and has an intent to remain there. Plaintiff was in California, in Tulare County, when she visited the Website, which occurred on multiple occasions during the class period including but not limited to on May 1, 2026. The Defendant is a California-chartered commercial bank with its principal place of business in Pasadena, California. East West Bank owns, operates, and controls the Website. Through the Website and related digital platforms, Defendant conducts banking, lending, and financial-services business directed at consumers nationwide and serves consumers in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties Seek to File Portion of Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file under seal certain portions of materials filed in connection with Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and Copeland Plaintiffs' separate motions for class certification and Defendants' motions to exclude expert testimony and opinions of Drs. Kevin Caves and Hal Singer. The specific materials subject to this Motion are identified in Exhibit A to this Motion and in the [Proposed] Sealing Order filed herewith The parties agree that certain material filed in connection with the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' motions to exclude expert testimony and opinions of Drs. Kevin Caves and Hal Singer is sealable. The parties and nonparties submit that their requests include confidential and business-sensitive information, trade secrets, contract terms, transactional sales and purchase data, negotiation and internal business strategies, nonpublic personal information, and other proprietary business information. Defendants submit that the need for protection is particularly acute here given the commercial relationships among the parties and nonparties: Defendants are in a vertical supplier-customer relationship, and several nonparties are customers of Energizer and horizontal competitors of Walmart. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2dQm5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ERMI LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wilkie Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WILKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERMI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03134-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members which resulted in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the suit. Ermi Inc was founded in 1991. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of surgical and other medical instruments, apparatus, and equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ERMI LLC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Rafiq Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- SOHAIL RAFIQ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERMI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03120-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII1") and protected health information ("PHI" and collectively with PII, "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains patients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. On July 25, 2025, Defendant discovered that between February 15, 2025 and August 14, 2025, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon including: Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, Veteran identification numbers, Passport numbers, usernames and passwords, email addresses with passwords and security questions, dates of birth, dates of death, taxpayer/employer identification numbers, financial account information, payment card information, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant delayed noticing affected individuals until on May 26, 2026, more than 15 months later, when ERMI began mailing individualized notice letters to impacted individuals. On May 28, 2026, Defendant reported to the Texas Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 9,453 Texas residents. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence per se, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages arising from the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Sohail Rafiq provided his Private Information to Defendant for medical services. Defendant ERMI, LLC is a provider of medical devices that partners with physicians, physical therapists, and other healthcare professionals to offer rehabilitative devices patients can use at home to assist with regaining joint mobility post-surgery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Tullos Oliver BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: 770-227-6375 Facsimile: 770-227-6373 E-mail: ktullos@barneslawgroup.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mails: jjh@federmanlaw.com ERMI LLC: ODonnell Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Durand Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN ODONNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERMI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03111-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including full names, diagnostic treatment information, and provider name. The complaint relates that in the course of its business, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI. On July 25, 2025, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until ten months later, on May 26, 2026. The Plaintiff and Class members now face years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring, and loss of rights. Plaintiff and Class members are incurring and will continue to incur such damages in addition to any fraudulent use of their PHI, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiff Steven ODonnell is a citizen and resident of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Defendant ERMI, LLC is a Georgia-based medical provider that supports patients' range-of-motion recovery using specialized stretching and flexing devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 South Dixie Hwy, # 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: 954-799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT: Alcantar Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS ALCANTAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT, INC. and EVERGREEN SENIOR LIVING, LLC, jointly and severally, Case No. 3:26-cv-01291 (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 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, in addition to the base rate of pay, Defendants incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment structure, compensation structure, including, but not limited to, call-in pay. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he and Defendants' Hourly Employees earned call-in pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Harrison, Michigan and was employed by Arden Courts Memory Care at a senior living community that was acquired by Defendants in or around 2025 from approximately August 2025 to October 2025. Additional putative Collective and Class members were or are employed by the Defendants as hourly employees during the past three years, the suit says. According to Evergreen's website, the company "supports seniors and their families with trusted guidance and high-quality senior living communities across the country. The website states: "Evergreen Senior Living supportive and assisted living communities offer compassionate services to support joyful and convenient living."[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 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jrusch@sommerspc.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file sur-reply in further opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification Good cause exists because the Plaintiff's reply relies on new arguments, new factual characterizations, and material omissions and misrepresentations that ExamWorks could not address in its opposition. Additionally, new factual developments germane to certification have occurred since the Plaintiff filed his reply, developments he failed to bring to the Court's attention. The proposed sur-reply addresses those issues, creates a complete and accurate record, and helps the Court perform the "rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23. ExamWorks provides medical claim management services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTwVQ6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Ruley, Esq. Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. Benjamin D. Williams, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 75 14th St. NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 E-mail: jruley@wtlaw.com ryan@wtlaw.com bwilliams@wtlaw.com FCA US: Request for Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Bid Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maugain, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116 (D. Del., Filed Jan. 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order denying the Request for Oral Argument on the pending motion for summary judgment. In the exercise of its discretion, the court may schedule oral argument on the motion for summary judgment after resolution of the pending motion for class certification in accordance with the courts Memorandum Order issued on May 11, 2026. The nature of suit states Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[CC] FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Class Cert in Polak Due Nov. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH POLAK and T. H., v. FINASTRA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01284-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Byron entered a second amended case management and scheduling order as follows: Disclosure of Expert Reports Plaintiff: July 31, 2026 Defendant: Aug. 31, 2026 Discovery – Class Action: Oct. 1, 2026 Motion for class certification: Nov. 2, 2026 Response to motion for class Dec. 1, 2026 certification: Discovery deadline: Feb. 1, 2027 Mediation deadline: Feb. 12, 2027 The Defendant provides banking software and solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kBI4gl at no extra charge.[CC] FLORIDA EAST: Faces Fisher Suit Over Synthetic Fragranced Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE FISHER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLORIDA EAST COAST INDUSTRIES, LLC and BRIGHTLINE HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-23944 (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2026) seeks remedies for the Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities despite the Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of Synthetic fragranced consumer products. According to the complaint, the Defendant claims to offer transportation facilities to the general public, including Representative 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. Representative Plaintiffs assert that these percentages would be far greater if those surveyed knew the full panoply of unregulated and toxic synthetic compounds normally found within Synthetic fragranced consumer products and their effect on daily life. The "Synthetic fragranced consumer product" is a base product to which synthetic fragrance compounds are then added and/or is a product that is largely comprised of fragrance. Synthetic fragranced consumer products are often used by hotels, banks, restaurants, wineries, medical and dental facilities, brick and mortal retail stores. Among other insidious realities of fragrance use by businesses, the employment of these fragranced compounds leaves visitors unsuspecting of other dangerous conditions (e.g., stachybotrys, chaetomium and other forms of deadly mold). By introducing Synthetic fragranced consumer products in this manner, these businesses are, in fact, increasing the health risks for visitors. These business are also creating environments unfit for all human beings, but especially for those with chemical sensitivity disabilities. For persons already suffering from respiratory disabilities, for example, the adverse health reactions to fragrance can be acute and extreme, the suit says. Brightline is a business that maintains transportation facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce. The Defendant is a privately owned and operated intercity railroad in the United States. Florida East is the parent company to Defendant Brightline Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cortney Beth Szafran, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: cbs@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com LegalDept@colevannote.com FLORIDA: Maron Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIEDA MARON and LAWRENCE MARON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLAISE INGOGLIA, in his official capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida and ANASTASIOS KAMOUTSAS, in his official capacity as Florida Commissioner of Education, Case No. 4:22-cv-00255-RH-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: (1) certify a class defined as: "All persons or entities (including their heirs, assignees, legal representatives, guardians, administrators, and successors in interest) who are owners of unclaimed property being held in custody by the State of Florida in the form of money under the State Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, Fla. Stat. Ch. 717, as of the date of the original complaint or who become owners of unclaimed property so held during the pendency of this litigation, and who will in the future reclaim their property from the State"; (2) appoint the Plaintiffs as the class representatives; and (3) appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. The State interprets Fla. Stat. 717.124(4)(a) (the "Act") as prohibiting it from paying property owners interest to compensate them for the delay between the time of the taking and the time of payment: a required part of just compensation. Because the State will refuse to pay interest to all Proposed Class members, it acts towards the Proposed Class on generally applicable grounds, making declaratory and injunctive relief and certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) appropriate. Because the State must treat all Proposed Class members alike, the prosecution of individual actions by them risks inconsistent or varying adjudications, which could impose inconsistent standards of conduct on the State. Thus, certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is also appropriate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsYx5w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott R. Jeeves, Esq. Roger L. Mandel, Esq. JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A. 2100 1st Ave. S, Suite 2 St. Petersburg, FL 33712 Telephone: (727) 894-2929 E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com - and - Craig E. Rothburd, Esq. CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A. 320 W. Kennedy Blvd., #700 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 251-8800 Facsimile: (813) 251-5042 E-mail: craig@rothburdpa.com maria@rothburdpa.com - and - Kelly A. Green, Esq. Julie M. O'Dell, Esq. Lauren A. (Ferguson) Black, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-8400 E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com jmo@skjlaw.com lab@skjlaw.com FRUIT DYNAMICS: Joseph Suit Seeks Back Pay After Mass Layoff ------------------------------------------------------------ Marie Nicole Joseph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fruit Dynamics LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01874 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2026) is a class action under the WARN Act on behalf of herself and other similarly situated former employees of Defendant who suffered an employment loss as a result of Defendant's abrupt plant closing and/or mass layoff at or involving its Naples, Florida worksite, without receiving the advance written notice required by federal law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant closed its plant and laid off approximately 150 employees on or about December 13, 2024, without providing Plaintiff and similarly situated employees the notice required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the proposed class, all remedies available under 29 U.S.C. section 2104, including back pay, benefits, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff was employed by Fruit Dynamics from approximately January 5, 2021 until her employment loss on or about December 13, 2024. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly employee in a vegetable cleaning position. Fruit Dynamics is a Florida-based fresh-cut produce processor and packaging company operating out of Lakeland and Naples, FL. Doing business as Incredible Fresh, the company specializes in supplying retail fresh-cut vegetables, tomatoes, and fruit products to grocery retailers across the Southeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Justice, Esq. Samuel Doxsee, Esq. JUSTICE LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Facsimile: (813) 566-0770 E-mail: sam@justicelitigation.law chad@justicelitigation.law FULLEST CO: Faces Garcia Over Automatic Renewing Paid Subscription ------------------------------------------------------------------ SILVIA GARCIA, Plaintiff v. THE FULLEST, CO., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.THEFULLEST.COM, Case No. 26STCV17810 (Cal. Super., June 4, 2026) is a action brought the Plaintiff on behalf of of himself and others similarly situated who are affected by the unlawful and/or unfair business practice or act automatically renewing paid subscription. The suit arises after the Plaintiff purchased an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.thefullest.com, which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. Accordingly, the Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law and failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The Defendant offers through the Website various subscriptions for products to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FUTURE OF LATINX: Sanchez Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONICA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff v. THE FUTURE OF LATINX BEAUTY INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.CEREMONIA.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV17812 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant over automatic subscription renewal. Defendant THE FUTURE OF LATINX BEAUTY INC. operates the Website, www.ceremonia.com which markets and sells beauty and haircare items. The complaint relates that the Defendant offers through the Website various subscriptions for products to consumers. But Defendant's offerings constitute an "automatic renewal" because such offerings comprise of plans, arrangements, or provisions of a contract that contains a free-to-pay conversion or in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term for the purposes of the California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"). The Defendant fails to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer, asserts the complaint. Moreover, the Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant asserting claims for: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Plaintiff MONICA SANCHEZ purchased "Guava Rescue Spray" from Defendant via the Website on October 9, 2025. [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 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com GABRIEL BROS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Wilson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GABRIEL BROS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06570 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.gabrielny.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Gabriel Bros, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GENEDX HOLDINGS: Faces Basma Suit Over Stock Price Decline ---------------------------------------------------------- TAHER BASMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENEDX HOLDINGS CORP., KATHERINE STUELAND, AND KEVIN FEELEY, Case No. 3:26-cv-00880 (D. Conn., June 4, 2026) is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased shares of WGS common stock between April 16, 2025 and May 4, 2026, inclusive, against WGS and certain of the Company's senior executives, due to alleged violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 16, 2025, WGS announced an agreement to acquire Fabric Genomics, an Oakland, California-based firm focused on AI-driven genomic interpretation in a deal worth up to $51 million. Under the terms of that deal, WGS would pay up to $33 million in cash up front, with a total consideration of up to $51 million, including payments linked to milestones. The acquisition was completed on May 5, 2025. At the time of the announcement of the Fabric acquisition, WGS stated in its press release that the acquisition would expand GeneDx's addressable market with multiple scalable revenue streams. Additionally, the Company stated that "Fabric Genomics' software transforms static data into a dynamic, recurring revenue-generating platform—driving growth through software margins and high-leverage interpretation services across geographies and clinical use cases." When the Company announced that the Fabric acquisition had been completed, WGS CEO Katherine Stueland repeated the Company's prior statement that the acquisition would "unlock recurring software-based revenue streams through Fabric's interpretation as-a-service model." According to the Company's last Annual Report on Form 10-K, which was filed on February 23, 2026, WGS completed the acquisition of Fabric for total consideration of $36.5 million, which included $3.4 million in contingent consideration. The Company also noted a net increase of $0.6 million in goodwill. However, after hours on May 4, 2026, the Company reported its financial earnings results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, and revealed that the Company had missed its revenue estimates for both its exome and genome lines, and lowered its guidance for full year revenue to $475 -- $490 million, down from $540 – $550 million. The day before the earnings results were released, WGS stock closed at $67.93 per share. As a result of this disclosure, the price of WGS stock declined by $33.42 or 49.20%. 10. It was also revealed that the Company had written off $31.2 million, as an impairment loss directly attributable to Fabric. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of WGS stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The claims against Defendants arise from their misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's statements regarding the impact of Fabric on the overall business of the Company, says the suit. Throughout the Class period, WGS repeatedly made statements that would have caused the average investor to believe that the Fabric acquisition would improve the Company's financials and create efficiencies between it and the Company's core business. These statements include such statements such as: "There is room to run in terms of reducing COGS in the future by combining the best of capability between GeneDx and Fabric as we lean into the best possible algorithms to optimize dry lab processes." These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were false. In truth, Defendants knew of, or recklessly disregarded, significant problems in Fabric's viability that would negatively impact WGS's overall business and operations. As a result, the Company's statements concerning its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable factual basis, and shares of WGS common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, the suit further asserts. WGS is a genomics company that provides genetic testing services for diagnosing pediatric and rare diseases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica M. Casey, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S. Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: jcasey@scott-scott.com - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Chad A. Carder, Esq. Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com ccarder@barrack.com aheo@barrack.com - and - Michael A. Toomey, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 11 Times Square 640 Eighth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 E-mail: mtoomey@barrack.com GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER: Jenkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY JENKINS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER OPERATIONS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03109-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief from the Defendant as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he and Defendant's hourly employees have earned performance pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, the Defendant's hourly employees are entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their regular rate of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Defendant has failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's performance pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its Lexington, Kentucky facility as a non-exempt, hourly employee with the job title of forklift operator since approximately January 2022. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC manufactures and markets bath tissue, paper towels, napkins, tableware, paper-based packaging, rigid food containers and cling film, cellulose and building products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 119 East Court Square, Suite 205 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kmilz@sommerspc.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com GKN AEROSPACE: Faces Amin Suit Over Forced Home Evacuation ---------------------------------------------------------- WAEL AMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GKN AEROSPACE TRANSPARENCY SYSTEMS INC., GKN AEROSPACE NORTH AMERICA INC., GKN AEROSPACE, INC., GKN AEROSPACE US HOLDINGS LLC, GKN AEROSPACE SERVICES LIMITED, AND MELROSE INDUSTRIES PLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01434 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action to seek orderly, comprehensive relief for the approximately 50,000 residents who were abruptly forced to evacuate their homes for a minimum of several days when the Defendants caused a preventable industrial emergency. According to the complaint, the Defendants caused a painful situation for an entire community, but it was only due to a combination of the heroic efforts of emergency responders who placed themselves in harm's way and a stroke of sheer luck that the situation did not escalate into a catastrophic loss of lives and homes. While the worst was averted, the Defendants' actions and failures nevertheless caused a wave of displacement and monetary loss that is breathtaking in its scope, says the suit. The Defendants -- not the innocent people they needlessly placed at risk, forced from their homes, and subjected to enormous unexpected expenses -- must bear the costs of these harmful actions and failures, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Wael Amin is an individual and a citizen of the State of California, where he intends to remain, residing in Stanton, Orange County, California where he intends to remain. GKN Aerospace is the nominal owner, operator, and primary permit holder for GKN Aerospace's operations in Garden Grove, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Ellyn Gendler, Esq. COULSON PC 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 E-mail: Nick@CoulsonPC.com EGendler@CoulsonPC.com GOPHER RESOURCE: Removes Verstraete Suit to D. Minn. ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JOHN VERSTRAETE; JULIE MURPHY; TERESA BLY; and ERIC SATRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOPHER RESOURCE, LLC; ECP GOPHER HOLDINGS, LP; and ENERGY CAPITAL PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LP, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Judicial District Court of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin (Case No. 27-CV-26-8815) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on June 4, 2026. The clerk of court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02854. Gopher Resource, LLC provides environmental solutions and battery recycling services. The Company recycles select household waste and lead-bearing materials, produces recycled lead and specialty alloys, and recycles lead batteries. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Piehl, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 Email: matthew.piehl@lw.com - and - Mark S. Mester, Esq. Robin M. Hulshizer, Esq. Robert C. Collins, III, Esq. Dylan P. Glenn, Esq. 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 Email: mark.mester@lw.com robin.hulshizer@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com dylan.glenn@lw.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC., and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his Request to file documents under seal in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to seal the redacted wage statements and payroll register reports for multiple putative class members, filed in connection with his motion for class certification, which were marked by the Defendant as "Confidential" pursuant the Parties' stipulated protective order. The Plaintiff seeks to seal redacted wage statements and payroll register reports through the first date of trial. The Plaintiff requests that the Parties, this Court, and any court reporter transcribing the proceedings be permitted to access any sealed documents. The putative class members have disclosed their own wage statements and payroll register reports to the Court. However, because the Defendant has marked the documents as "Confidential," under the terms of the Parties' stipulated protective order, the Plaintiff is required to make this request. Guardian is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass, automotive and building products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jmRszB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan J. Reese, Esq. Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq. ARCH LEGAL, P.C. 3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 E-mail: nreese@archlegal.com mrodriguez@archlegal.com HAMILTON COMMONS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS MAURER, an individual Plaintiff, vs. HAMILTON COMMONS TEI EQUITIES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,Case No. 1:26-cv-06547 (D.N.J., June 4, 2026) is a class action brought against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a shopping center with several tenant spaces, known as Hamilton Commons, located at 4215-4315 Black Horse Pike, Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. Mr. Maurer is a staunch advocate of the ADA. Since becoming mobility impaired (and having to fully rely on the use of his wheelchair to ambulate) he has dedicated his life to the elimination of accessibility discrimination so that he, and others like him, may have full and equal enjoyment of all public accommodations without fear of discrimination and repeated exposure to architectural barriers. The Defendant owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiff to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com HEALTHTRAX FITNESS: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Shell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHTRAX FITNESS & WELLNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00892 (D. Conn., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") from criminal hackers, resulting in a devastating data breach. The complaint relates that in the course of providing fitness, aquatics, personal training, wellness, and healthcare-focused services to its members, Healthtrax collects, stores, and maintains sensitive personal, financial, and health-related information entrusted to it by consumers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties it owed to them and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. Despite Defendant's obligation to keep Plaintiff's and Class Member's Private Information secure, upon information and belief, Defendant experienced a Data Breach in May 2026 by Akira ransomware group. Based on Akira's post, it stole highly confidential employee and/or customer information, including names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, payroll information, driver's licenses, passports, and/or financial information (i.e., account numbers, PIN numbers, and routing numbers) (collectively, "Private Information"), which Defendant collected in the ordinary course of business. To date, Defendant has failed to announce that it has experienced a data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have likely suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained. Plaintiff John Shell is a citizen of Connecticut and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Healthtrax Fitness & Wellness, Inc. is a multi-state operator of health clubs and wellness centers headquartered in Glastonbury, Connecticut, with locations across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, including Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina.[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 - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Evan D. Robert, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S. Unit 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com erobert@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Tyler Bean, Esq. Neil Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com HEALTHYLINE HOLDING: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHYLINE HOLDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06557 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.healthyline.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 he attempted multiple times, most recently on August 11, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for wellness mat, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The complaint asserts that 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. 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. Healthyline Holding, Inc. operates the website that offers therapeutic products, including mats, accessories, and wellness solutions designed for home use.[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 HEATHER HILL: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for August 6 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall v. Heather Hill Property Company LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238 (d. Md., Filed Jan. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Adam B. Abelson entered an order that the Court will hold oral argument on the motion to certify class on August 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 7D of the Baltimore federal courthouse. If any party requests that this hearing occur on Zoom, that party shall make a request in writing within 7 days of this Order. The nature of suit states Real Property -- All Other Real Property. Heather operates Heather Hill Apartments.[CC] HENRY ROSE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hippe Suit Due Oct. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HENRY ROSE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00082-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order as follows: 1. The parties shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) concerning initial disclosures by May 18, 2026. 2. The parties may join additional parties and amend pleadings without further leave of the court through July 1, 2026. 3. The parties shall complete fact discovery on or before Oct. 1, 2026. Primary expert witness disclosures shall be due on or before Oct. 22, 2026. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be due on or before Nov. 12, 2026. 4. All requests for discovery shall be served by a date sufficiently early so that all discovery in this case can be completed no later than Nov. 16, 2026. 5. Class certification motions shall be filed on or before Oct. 1, 2026. 6. Any dispositive motions must be served and filed on or before Dec. 16, 2026. The Defendant is a manufacturer of fine fragrances. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6M7dzU at no extra charge.[CC] HOLLYWOOD FASHION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. HOLLYWOOD FASHION SECRETS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04696 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its commercial website, www.hollywoodfashionsecrets.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on February 8, 2026 and February 15, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Fashion Tape from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Fashion Tape, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: medical quality double-stick fashion tape, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Fashion Tape. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Fashion Tape but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HOME EXPRESS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Valdivia Due Oct. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valdivia et al v. Home Express Delivery Service LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05215 (W.D. Wash., Filed March 3, 2026), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order as follows: -- Motion for Class Certification due by Oct. 23, 2026 -- Responsive Brief due by Nov. 13, 2026 -- Reply Brief due by Nov. 20, 2026 -- Parties are directed to file an updated Joint Status Report within 14 days of the Court's decision on class certification. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. Home Express is a federally authorized freight broker.[CC] HOMEAGLOW INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Homeaglow Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-04149-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Website https://www.homeaglow.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is an online platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services offered by the Defendant. The Defendant offers access to a variety of cleaning services, including routine cleaning, deep cleaning, and move-related cleaning services, as well as flexible scheduling options for recurring and one-time appointments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law HOMETAP EQUITY: Faces Suit Over Home Loans' Deceptive Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT C. BATCHELOR and BRYAN L. BOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC,; HOMETAP HEI FUND IV SPV II, LLC,; and HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, L.P., Case No. 1:26-cv-00515 (M.D.N.C., June 3, 2026) arises from Hometap's deceptive and predatory scheme to disguise high-cost home loans as home equity "investments." According to the complaint, Hometap advertises that a homeowner can receive an upfront cash payment in exchange for an "option" to purchase a percentage interest in the homeowner's home in the future. While Hometap explicitly markets and states its product "is not a loan," the economic realities of the transaction dictate otherwise. In practice, Hometap operates as a shadow lender, forcing homeowners to secure the transaction with a traditional Deed of Trust and Security Agreement that aggressively encumbers the property. Just like a standard mortgage lender, Hometap arms itself with a "Power of Sale," threatening vulnerable homeowners with nonjudicial foreclosure, loss of possession, and the appointment of a receiver if they fail to meet the company's strict, ongoing property obligations, the suit says. However, these contracts, although written in the form of an "Option Purchase Agreement" are mortgage loans that include deceptive disclosures, illegal fees, and exorbitant effective interest rates, the suit adds. Additionally, Hometap's financial structure is designed to strip equity from homeowners through deceptive disclosures and exorbitant fees and effective interest rates. Hometap lures consumers in by offering an upfront lump sum of cash while immediately skimming thousands of dollars in "Investment Fees" and third-party closing costs off the top. Mr. Bott is an adult individual and American consumer who resides at 9316 Ainslie Downs Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273. He is a homeowner who entered into an Option Purchase Agreement with Hometap on or about May 28, 2024. HEP is the primary operating entity that facilitates its real estate transactions with consumers. HEP controls the subsidiaries that are the contractual counterparties in transactions entered into by Hometap, such as Defendant Hometap HEI Fund IV SPV II, LLC (HHEI) and Hometap Investment Partners II, L.P. (HIP).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com HOUSTON EYE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Scott-Compton Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JANET SCOTT-COMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSTON EYE ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04398 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is responsible for the injuries it inflicted on the Plaintiff and thousands of others due to the Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, says the suit. Houston Eye Associates operates as a comprehensive opthalmology clinic. The Clinic offers its patience various health care services including general opthalmology, lasik refractive surgery, pediatric ophthalmology, cornea and external disease, glaucoma, ocular inflammation, and orthoptics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com HYATT CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jimenez Due Oct. 23 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting the stipulation to extend expert disclosure and motion for class certification deadlines. The deadlines are continued as follows: Event Date Deadline for supplemental expert designation Aug. 21, 2026 related to class certification: Deadline to file motion for class Oct. 23, 2026 certification: Hyatt is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7Bhzs at no extra charge.[CC] HYATT HOTELS: Kovacs Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragrance Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER KOVACS, MICHELLE POLLOK and TINA WESTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05353 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of employing synthetic fragranced products in its facilities despite actual or constructive knowledge of their harmful and disabling effects. According to the complaint, the 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 Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a global hospitality company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [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 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com I.A.C. INC: Davis Files Suit in D. Connecticut ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.A.C., Inc. The case is styled as Christian Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.A.C., Inc. d/b/a Industrial Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00865 (D. Conn., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. I.A.C., Inc. doing business as Industrial Acceptance Corporation -- https://iaccredit.com/ -- provides information about and access to financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Email: shopkins@zlk.com I.A.C. INC: Downs Files Suit in D. Connecticut ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.A.C., Inc. The case is styled as Amber Downs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.A.C., Inc. d/b/a Industrial Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00866 (D. Conn., June 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. I.A.C., Inc. doing business as Industrial Acceptance Corporation -- https://iaccredit.com/ -- provides information about and access to financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (203) 992-4523 Email: shopkins@zlk.com I.A.C. INC: Miechur Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRAD MIECHUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00907 (D. Conn., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between February 22, 2025, and February 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. I.A.C., Inc., doing business as Industrial Acceptance Corporation, is a company that offers consumer financing based in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com I.A.C. INC: Williams Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- STACEY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00877 (D. Conn., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Declaratory Judgment Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or before February 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. I.A.C., Inc., doing business as Industrial Acceptance Corporation, is an automotive lending provider based in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com IN-SHAPE FAMILY FITNESS: Ruz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Ruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04233-EPG (E.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. In-Shape Health Clubs -- https://www.inshape.com/ -- is a chain of membership athletic centers.[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 INDIGO WILD: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Soto Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCISCO SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDIGO WILD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04714 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.indigowild.com in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on three separate occasions -- February 12, 2026, March 9, 2026, and April 14, 2026 -- Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's Website using NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access), a screen-reader program to research and purchase Zum Bar Goat's Milk Soap, Zum Body Soap, and Zum Mist Aromatherapy Spray. Despite multiple attempts across these three dates, Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to pervasive access barriers. These barriers prevented NVDA and JAWS (Job Access With Speech) from conveying critical product information such as scent, ingredients, size, availability, and price. As such, Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class and subclass based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.indigowild.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. Plaintiff Francisco Soto is a resident of New York County and is permanently disabled due to advanced Wet Age‑Related Macular Degeneration ("Wet AMD"), a degenerative retinal disease that has caused severe and irreversible central vision loss. As a legally blind individual, Mr. Soto relies exclusively on screen-reading software and keyboard navigation to access digital content independently. Defendant operates a retail e-commerce platform through which consumers can browse plant-based body care products, review product-specific information (including scent profiles, ingredients, and product variations), and purchase items directly online for nationwide delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com INVIDA FINANCIAL: Filing Deadline for Class Cert Bid Continued -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bland v. InVida Financial Network LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00259 (N.D. Tex., Filed Feb. 2, 2026), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting motion to continue the deadline to move for class certification. The deadline is extended to 21 days following completion of her post-default discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). InVida provides insurance, wealth management, retirement planning, mortgage protection, mentorship and training services.[CC] IROBOT CORP: Taylor Files Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IROBOT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-6018 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other customers who purchased Defendant's "Roomba" vacuums and cleaning appliances, pursuant to California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant sells and markets its Products through the Roomba brand and on its website, www.irobot.com and third-party websites. iRobot consistently advertises the Products on sale for purchase at a discounted price. However, the "sales" are perpetual, i.e. the Products are always sold at a purportedly discounted price, and never at the original reference prices, says the suit. Through this alleged false and deceptive marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, the Defendant has violated California law, which expressly prohibits falsely advertising goods on "sale" from fictitious former prices, the complaint asserts. The regular prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices because the Products are consistently available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts the customer is receiving and are often not discounts at all, the suit contends. iRobot Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law J M SMUCKER: Continues to Defend False Advertising Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- J M Smucker Co. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from false advertising class suits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Company is a defendant in a series of putative class action lawsuits that were transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs assert claims arising under various state laws for false advertising, consumer protection, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and similar statutes. Their claims are premised on allegations that the Company has misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from various canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those products. The outcome and the financial impact of these cases, if any, cannot be predicted at this time. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of April 30, 2026, and the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable. However, it is required to pay significant damages, its business and financial results could be adversely impacted, and sales of those products could suffer not only in these locations but elsewhere. J M Smucker Co. is a leading North American branded food and beverage company, best known for its coffee, spreads, pet food, and snacks. The company markets products under a portfolio of well-known brands, including Folgers, Smuckers, and Jif, through retail, foodservice, and e-commerce channels. J.B. HUNT: Faces Barker Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL BARKER and GEORGE CROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-05128-DCF (W.D. Ark, June 3, 2026) challenges the Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. Employee Benefits Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, it is both unfair and unlawful for entities like J.B. Hunt to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products without making available a reasonable alternative standard to avoid those surcharges. The tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but to be lawful plans must make available a compliant "wellness program" that provides employees with an avenue to avoid the surcharge. Making a compliant wellness program available means employers must adhere to strict rules set forth by ERISA and the implementing regulations established by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury over ten years ago in 2014, the suit says. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants of all available avenues to avoid the surcharge. Defendant fails to disclose in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge (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, the Defendant withheld critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shift Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor, the Plaintiff adds. Plaintiff Barker was an employee of Defendant J.B. Hunt, who paid a tobacco surcharge of $15 weekly (roughly $780 annually) under the Plan. Plaintiff Barker was required to pay this tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance under the Plan. J.B. Hunt is a major transportation and logistics company operating throughout the United States. At all relevant times, J.B. Hunt sponsored, maintained, and administered the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Ste 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. James T. Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com jcatania@sirillp.com JAMES CRESS: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES CRESS FLORIST & GIFTS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04667 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.jamescressflorist.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. James Cress Florist & Gifts Inc. is a retail, and flowers, gifts & specialty stores company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JCR HOLDINGS: Villaverde Files Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JCR HOLDINGS II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-009201 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 3, 2026) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made telephonic sales calls by text message. Specifically, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted weight-loss company Jenny Craig and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the suit. JCR Holdings II, LLC, is foreign limited liability company, which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com JOCKO FUEL: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOCKO FUEL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04664 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://jockofuel.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including February 9, 2026 and February 15, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Energy Drinks from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Jocko Fuel LLC operates the website that sells energy drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Must File Response to Prelim. Injunction Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, et al., v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order directing the Defendants to file a response to the motion for preliminary injunction within ten (10) days of the entry of the Order. Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff, namely, a "Motion for Preliminary Injunction," a "Motion for Class Certification," and a "Motion for Leave to Proceed Pseudonymously." The Plaintiffs may (and are encouraged to) file a reply to the Defendants' response to the motion for preliminary injunction within five (5) days of the filing of the Defendants' response. As for the other two of the three Motions, they are subject to this Court's general briefing schedule. The Court notes that it may turn out to be infeasible or inadvisable for it to decide the Motion for Class Certification prior to July 1, 2026. If that motion is not decided prior to July 1, 2026, then any preliminary injective relief that the Court conceivably could award prior to July 1, 2026 arguably should not or even must not be afforded to anyone other than the two named Plaintiffs (and not to any other individuals, including individuals who are members of the putative class). The parties are encouraged to brief this issue in their respective upcoming briefing; to the extent that they forgo doing so, they proceed at their peril with respect to this issue. Jonathan Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuwcKz at no extra charge.[CC] JOYCOAST LLC: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Joycoast LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6582 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://joycoast.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The complaint relates that Nonato made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on April 20, 2026. However, while navigating the Website, Nonato encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny Nonato full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Nonato 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. Nonato 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 Jose Nonato is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Joycoast LLC 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 eco-friendly wooden lifestyle and fashion accessories, including sunglasses, watches, rings, bracelets, eyewear, watch bands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law K-LA LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Conner Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONNER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. K-LA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00399 (W.D.N.C., May 22, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Moreover, the Defendant's website contains several access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, K-LA LLC owns and operates the website, ShopKLA.com, which offers women’s clothing and related products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC 2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200 Matthews, NC 28105 Telephone: (704) 814-0729 Facsimile: (704) 814-0730 E-mail: srg@gohillaw.com - and - Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com KASHYAP PATEL: More Time to File Class Certification Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE GARMAN, BLAIRE TOLEMAN, and MICHELLE BALL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, v. KASHYAP P. PATEL in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01086-JMC (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) setting their proposed briefing schedule for the Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint so that it aligns with the motion-to-dismiss briefing schedule that the parties in a related case intend to propose, and (2) continuing the deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until after the Court decides the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because Garman and Doe involve similar questions of law and the cases were filed close together in time, the Garman and Doe parties have agreed that it would further judicial economy to align the briefing schedules for the Defendants' forthcoming motions to dismiss in each case, the suit says. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution by removing them from federal service without due process and because they were perceived to be political opponents. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 31, 2026. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YerPFk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. Matthew Brinckherhoff, Esq. Daniel M. Eisenberg, Esq. Rachael Wyant, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: acelli@ecbawm.com mbrinckerhoff@ecbawm.com deisenberg@ecbawm.com rwyant@ecbawm.com - and - Lesley Allison Brovner, Esq. Mark G. Peters, Esq. PETERS BROVNER LLP 139 Fulton Street, Suite 132 New York, NY 10038 The Defendants are represented by: Brett A. Shumate, Esq. Christopher Hall, Esq. Isaac C. Belfer, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-7134 Facsimile: (202) 514-8742 E-mail: Isaac.C.Belfer@usdoj.gov KASSATEX INC: Villaverde Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KASSATEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-009245 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing telephonic sales calls to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. Kassatex, Inc. is an online store operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com KENTUCKY INDUSTRIAL: Morgan Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KENTUCKY INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, INC. and RUSSELLVILLE ENGINEERED CASTINGS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00013-GNS (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Stivers entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to conduct discovery as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall be permitted to serve upon the Defendants a request for production, interrogatories, and a Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition concerning: (a) any third-party involvement; (b) any information pertinent to establishing class certification; and (c) information necessary to establish damages. 2. The Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the entry of this order to complete this discovery. 3. Within 14 days of the completion of this period for discovery, the Plaintiff shall file either an amended complaint, if she deems a good faith basis for doing so, or she shall seek entry of default against Defendants if they do not file a responsive answer by that time. Kentucky is a holding and acquisition firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJ2oCC at no extra charge.[CC] KENTUCKY: Huffman Appeals Reconsideration Order to 6th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES RICHARD HUFFMAN, IV is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled James Richard Huffman, IV, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amy Robey, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00093, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of civil rights. On Jan. 7, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to complete discovery, which Judge Charles R. Simpson, III denied on Feb. 10, 2026. On Feb. 23, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Feb. 10 Order, which Judge Simpson denied on May 13, 2026. The appellate case is styled as James Huffman, IV v. Amy Robey, et al., Case No. 26-5503, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES RICHARD HUFFMAN, IV, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees AMY ROBEY, et al. are represented by: Richard Dale Lilly, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, KY 40602 Telephone: (502) 782-2299 - and - Jason Matthew Tatman, Esq. KOPKA LAW GROUP 301 E. Main Street, Suite 750 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 368-8999 KREBS BREWING: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KREBS BREWING CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04695 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.prairieales.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Krebs Brewing Co., Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LAGUNA BEACH: Civil Standing Order entered in Breit Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BREIT, et al., v. LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01418-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a civil standing order as follows : The action has been assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter. Both the court and all counsel bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in this court. "Counsel," as used in this Order, includes parties appearing pro se. To secure the just, speedy, nd inexpensive determination of every action, all counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. S The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Scheduling Conference and Rule 26(f) Meeting of Counsel Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the court will issue an Order Setting a Scheduling Conference. All discovery matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. If the action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. The Defendant is a public school district that serves the city of Laguna Beach, California in Orange County, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sVPdjL at no extra charge.[CC] LALTITUDE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Youngren Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Laltitude LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06600 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.picassotiles.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Youngren and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 21, 2026, Plaintiff Youngren was searching online for building toys for his children. During his search, he discovered Defendant's website, and decided to explore it with the intention of making a purchase. However, while attempting to purchase the Picasso Tiles 45pc Red Stem Rose Building Toy Set, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to complete the purchase. The complaint asserts that 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. Plaintiff Youngren seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Laltitude LLC operates the website that offers magnetic building toys and educational playsets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LANCASTER COUNTY, PA: Kling Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER KLING, HEATHER MOSER, JASON SNYDER, JUSTIN WIDMARK, and EMMA KREIDER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER, Case No. 5:26-cv-01528-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: a. Conditionally certifying the following collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former hourly Telecommunicator Specialists (Dispatchers) and Assistant Communication Supervisors employed by the County of Lancaster in the Department of Public Safety 9-1-1 Division at any time during the three years preceding the Court's Order granting conditional certification through the conclusion of this action." b. Approving the parties' proposed Notice of Collective Action and Consent to Join form; c. Authorizing dissemination of the Notice and Consent to Join form to potential collective members; and d. Authorizing the production of contact information for potential collective members. The Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), arising from the Defendant's alleged overtime compensation practices applicable to employees in the Lancaster County Department of Public Safety 9-1-1 Division. The Defendant is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W6YL6x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony T. Bowser, Esq. KREVSKY BOWSER LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 LEAGUE OUTFITTERS: Wilson sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAGUE OUTFITTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06567 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.leagueoutfitters.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on December 4, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for football shoulder pads, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him 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. 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. League Outfitters, LLC operates the website that offers protective sports equipment.[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 LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Drinkwater Sues Over Consumer Report Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- SLOANE DRINKWATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGENDS HOSPITALITY, LLC D/B/A LEGENDS GLOBAL, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00758 (M.D. Tenn., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Legends Hospitality, LLC, doing business as Legends Global, is a venue management company based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Facsimile: (646) 417-4967 Email: wpayne@sirillp.com - and - Courtney C. Washington, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 107 S. McGraw Ave. Forney, TX 75126 Telephone: (972) 349-1906 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: cwashington@sirillp.com LEPRINO FOODS: $283K Settlement in Dominguez Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted in part; 2. The following settlement class is certified: "All non-exempt employees of Leprino Foods Company who performed work in California from Oct. 17, 2023 through Feb. 24, 2024." 3. The Court approves a $283,976.00 gross settlement amount. 4. The Plaintiff Christopher Dominguez is approved as the class representative for the settlement class and shall receive a $7,500 class representative service payment. 5. Kristen Agnew, Larry Lee, Max Gavron, and Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan of Diversity Law Group, P.C. are approved as class counsel for the settlement class and the Court approves an award of $94,658.66 6. The Court approves an award of $23,789.43 in costs. 7. The Court approves Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the settlement administrator and payment of $11,995.000 to it as costs. The Defendant is an American company that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TsJo4K at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Plastic Surgery Class Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as THE PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.; LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP.; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.; LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC.; FAIRPAY SOLUTIONS, INC. (f/k/a Mednet Connect, Inc., a/k/a Mitchell Specialty Bill Review); ENLYTE GROUP, LLC (f/k/a Mitchell|Genex|Coventry, d/b/a Mitchell and Genex Services); and ABC CORPS. 1-100, Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-003460-26, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Law Division, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06513 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly calculated out-of-network reimbursement rates for workers' compensation claims submitted by New Jersey plastic surgeons. Defendant Enlyte Group, LLC provides technology solutions. The company specializes in cost-containment technology, independent medical exams, provider and specialty networks, case management services, pharmacy benefit, and disability management.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Harvey Bartle, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 Telephone: 609-919-6600 Facsimile: 609-919-6701 E-mail: harvey.bartle@morganlewis.com - and - Scott T. Schutte, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: 312-324-1773 Facsimile: 312-324-1001 E-mail: scott.schutte@morganlewis.com - and - Zachary M. Johns, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007 Telephone: 215-963-5340 Facsimile: 215-963-5001 E-mail: zachary.johns@morganlewis.com LIME ROCK: Chastain Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as David A. Chastain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Lime Rock Resources Operating Company, Inc., Lime Rock Resources IV-A, L.P., LRR IV Operating, Inc., Lime Rock Resources IIIA, L.P., and LRR III Operating, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-00167-DES (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the class settlement. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) certify the Settlement Class consisting of: "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from the Defendants (or Defendants' designee) for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or whose proceeds from Oklahoma wells were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by the Defendants; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Defendants, their affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); and (4) persons or entities that the Plaintiff's Counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.; (2) preliminarily approve the Settlement; (3) appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class; (4) appoint the Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel; and (5) set a hearing date for final approval of the Settlement and application for an award of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and administration, notice, and distribution costs, and a case contribution award to the Plaintiff. After more than thirteen months, the Plaintiff has obtained an outstanding recovery for the Settlement Class. Specifically, the Plaintiff has reached a settlement worth $3,340,000.00 in cash for the Plaintiff's class claims for statutory interest owed on late payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under Oklahoma law. Lime Rock specializes in acquiring, improving, and operating oil and gas properties across the U.S. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qwnv8x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1310 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 641-8662 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com LOAN STORE: Dukes Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Account Specialists --------------------------------------------------------------- VIRIDIANA DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LOAN STORE AZ, INC. (FN) and THE LOAN STORE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00291-AMM (D. Ariz., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant with the title of Account Specialist and Partner Support Specialist from on or around August 12, 2024 until on or around February 6, 2026. The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN) is a loan company based in Arizona. The Loan Store, Inc. is a loan company based in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com LPL FINANCIAL: Nietz Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ KERRY NIETZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LPL FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03383-JES-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who acquired rights under life insurance policies or annuity contracts issued by what was formerly known as The Phoenix Companies, Inc., now known as PHL Variable Insurance Company in Rehabilitation ("Phoenix" or "PHL"), and sold by Defendant LPL or purchased through LPL investment advisors. The complaint relates that as an investment advisor, the Defendant occupied and assumed a unique position of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs and Class Members regarding the brokering, sale, and servicing of the Phoenix Products which were knowingly used by Plaintiff and others similarly situated for retirement planning, estate planning, risk management planning, personal wealth planning, and/or investment planning. However, Defendant abused its position of trust and confidence. For more than a decade, Defendant concealed real and imminent threats facing Plaintiff's and Class Members' insurance policies and annuity contracts and their associated benefits (the "Phoenix Products"). At all times after 2009, Defendant knew the financial risk facing Phoenix and chose to keep silent so it could hide its breaches of trust and failure to disclose while quietly pocketing and improperly retaining millions of dollars in upfront and trailer commissions, to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members. By the time Plaintiff and Class Members became aware of their financial injury, it was too late, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff's former LPL investment advisor has conceded that Plaintiff's financial injury was "years in the making." The same former advisor acknowledged it is a "fair question" why Plaintiff's then-current LPL advisor never informed Plaintiff about the risk facing the Nietz Variable Annuity, given that financial advisor "was receiving a trail commission" during the time that Phoenix was rapidly deteriorating and in unsound condition. The Plaintiff and Class Members were immediately harmed and will remain harmed with inadequate recourse regardless of the outcome of the PHL Rehabilitation, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members are definitively unable to obtain benefits to which they are entitled -- despite paying hundreds of millions of dollars in premiums in connection with these benefits, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Kerry Nietz is the Primary Annuitant of the Flexible Premium Variable Accumulation Deferred Annuity sold under a Prospectus that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under a product originally known as Phoenix Investor's Edge in 1999. Phoenix Investor's Edge is now known as The Big Edge Choice. Defendant LPL Financial LLC operates as an investment advisor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, 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: mroberts@bursor.com LUCID GROUP: Class Certification Bid Hearing Set for July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:22-cv-02094 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order as follows: The class certification motion hearing currently set for July 30, 2026 is continued to August 27, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. A joint status report informing the Court about the outcome of the parties' July 24, 2026 mediation session is due by noon on July 31, 2026. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange. Lucid Group is an American automotive and technology company. [CC] LUME DEODORANT: Navarrete Files Suit Over ARL Violation ------------------------------------------------------- VALERIA NAVARRETE, Plaintiff v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC, a New York limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.LUMEDEODORANT.COM Defendant, Case No. 26STCV17938 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"). The complaint relates that the Defendant offers through the Website www.lumedeodorant.com various subscriptions for products to consumers. But Defendant's offerings constitute an "automatic renewal" because such offerings comprise of plans, arrangements, or provisions of a contract that contains a free-to-pay conversion or in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term for the purposes of California's ARL. In short, Defendant fails to properly present consumers with its automatic renewal offers or continuous service offer terms prior to a consumer completing a purchase. The Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant asserting claims for: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Plaintiff VALERIA NAVARRETE purchased "Peony Rose Acidified Body Wash" from Defendant via the Website on November 17, 2025. Defendant LUME DEODORANT, LLC operates the Website, www.lumedeodorant.com which markets and sells hygiene products.[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 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com LYFT INC: Bid to Dismiss Zigler Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY ZIGLER, et al., v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00575-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order denying Lyft's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and either file a stipulation or status report within a week of the date of this order. The Court rejects Lyft's contention that Ms. Zigler lacked standing at the outset of the case. And even if she did lack standing at the outset, that did not preclude her from, early in the proceedings, amending her complaint consistent with Rule 15(a)(1)(B) to establish standing. According to the Plaintiffs, they each paid a premium on Priority Pickup and/or Standard but Lyft failed to provide a ride on the terms advertised. The Plaintiffs assert false advertising based on not only Lyft's Priority Pickup service but also its Standard service. Lyft is an American company offering ride-hailing services, motorized scooters, and bicycle-sharing systems in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KlxYN5 at no extra charge.[CC] MAPLE AVENUE: Cole Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ KATRINA COLE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPLE AVENUE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC AND ALLIANCE HEALTH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00518 (M.D.N.C., June 4, 2026) contends that the Defendants required Plaintiff Katrina Cole to work more than 40 hours a week as a certified nursing assistant without the proper amount of overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Th Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to her individually and on behalf of all current and former patient care employees, or similar employees, who performed work for Defendants during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint up to the date the Court authorizes notice. Accordingly, the Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis but failed to pay her for all of the hours she actually worked. Defendants also failed to properly calculate the overtime it did pay her. The Defendants automatically deducted thirty minutes a day for each day Plaintiff worked for so called "meal breaks," regardless of whether Plaintiff actually received a bona fide meal break. But Plaintiff and other employees of Defendants did not actually receive a bona fide meal break. Instead, Defendants required Plaintiff and other employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and Defendants continuously subjected them to interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks," the suit says. The Defendants also paid Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses but failed to include those bonuses in her regular rate of pay when calculating her overtime compensation, the suit adds. Plaintiff Katrina Cole is an individual that performed work for Defendants in Guilford County, North Carolina. Plaintiff currently resides in Guilford County, North Carolina. Plaintiff’s written consent to this action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Defendants operate a chain of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wilson Fong, Esq. Hensel Law, PLLC Post Office Box 39270 Greensboro, North Carolina 27438 Telephone: (336) 218-6466 Facsimile: (336) 218-6467 E-mail: will.fong@hensellaw.com - and - Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com MARSHA MCLANE: Court Dismisses Richards Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RICHARDS, V. MARSHA MCLANE, TCCO Executive Director, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00075-H-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Hendrix entered an order accepting the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate. The Court therefore (1) grants the Defendants McLane and Management & Training Corporation's motions to dismiss, (2) dismisses the Plaintiffs official-capacity claims against the Defendant Mclane for retrospective relief without prejudice, and (3) dismisses all other claims with prejudice. Additionally, the Court denies all relief not expressly granted and any pending motions, including the Plaintiffs motion to certify class, and motion to join party as defendant. Marsha McLane is the executive director for the Texas Civil Commitment Office. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1yFiqb at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the current Class Certification briefing schedule, which the Court entered on Jan. 22, 2026 to allow the parties to complete the discovery that they believe will be necessary for class certification, allow additional time for expert discovery related to class certification, and allow Meta time to evaluate procedural options and defense strategy in light of the Court's early summary judgment ruling. Event New Deadline The Plaintiff's deadline to file: July 31, 2026 (1) motion for class certification and (2) expert reports related to class certification: The Defendant's deadline to file: Sept. 30, 2026 (1) response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and (2) expert reports related to class Certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file: Nov. 4, 2026 (1) reply in support of class certification and (2) rebuttal expert reports related to class certification: Hearing on motion for class Nov. 20, 2026 certification: Accordingly, the proposed adjustments to the case schedule will cause no prejudice to Plaintiff or Meta, serve judicial economy by helping ensure that class certification is briefed on a materially complete record, allow Meta the time it needs to make its document production, allow Plaintiff and her expert sufficient time to review the documents, avoid the filing of supplements to motions or expert reports, provide sufficient time to coordinate schedules of the parties and expert witnesses for depositions, and avoid inefficiencies. Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PdMxcx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 Facsimile: (213) 229-6396 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. Sean Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER SCHUMAN, et al., v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to amend the scheduling order to reopen discovery. The Court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to reopen discovery at this time. Nevertheless, as with class certification, the Court is not foreclosing the possibility that it may need to revisit this issue. The Court may reassess the need to reopen discovery once it has developed the common factual record regarding the Defendants' conduct in interpreting the Atmel Plan and communicating with class members. Much like their motion for decertification, the Defendants' argument to reopen discovery turns on the premise that the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion—and the nine-factor test it articulated— transforms the nature of this case. As the Court already explained in denying the motion for decertification, the Court disagrees that the opinion has such sweeping implications Microchip is an American semiconductor corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rIdxxh at no extra charge.[CC] MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Decertify Class in Schuman Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER SCHUMAN, et al., v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to decertify the class. Accordingly, having found that common issues continue to predominate as to both of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court continues to find that "trial by class representation would further the goals of efficiency and judicial economy." The Court thus finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(3) remains appropriate for both the denial of benefits claim and the breach of fiduciary duty claim. This is an ERISA class action regarding Defendants' alleged failure to pay severance benefits owed under the Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program. The Plaintiffs sought to certify a single class of former employees of Atmel Corporation who were terminated without cause after Atmel was acquired by Microchip. Microchip is a publicly traded semiconductor corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JGrq7 at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Six Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; QUALTRICS INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; and QUALTRICS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff moves to certify California-resident only Subclasses for the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims, and National Classes and California Subclasses for the invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion claims. The Proposed Classes are defined as follows: First Nationwide Class: "All natural persons residing in the United States who are current or former Kaiser Members and had their PHI taken by Defendants while using the Kaiser Website." First California Subclass: "All natural persons residing in California who are current or former Kaiser Members and had their PHI taken by Defendants while using the Kaiser Website." First Northern California Subclass: "All natural persons residing in California who are current or former Northern California Kaiser Members and had their PHI taken by Defendant Qualtrics in connection with their partnerships with The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. ("TPMG")." Second Nationwide Class: "All natural persons residing in the United States who are current or former Kaiser Members and had their Private Data, other than PHI, taken by Defendants while using the Kaiser Website." Second California Subclass: "All natural persons residing in California who are current or former Kaiser Members and had their Private Data, other than PHI, taken by Defendants while using the Kaiser Website." Second Northern California Subclass: "All natural persons residing in California who are current or former Northern California Kaiser Members and had their Private Data, other than PHI, taken by Defendant Qualtrics in connection with their partnerships with TPMG." The Plaintiff brought this case because she, like millions of other members of Kaiser Permanente who visited Kaiser's website, had her private information collected by the Defendants Microsoft Corporation and Qualtrics International, Inc. and Qualtrics LLC without her knowledge or consent. Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k6cBtx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander A. Baehr, Esq. Molly J. Gibbons, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue S., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 E-mail: alexb@summitlaw.com mollyg@summitlaw.com - and - Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Monique M. Candiff, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG, RHOW PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com mcandiff@birdmarella.com - and - Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Holly K. Nye, Esq. Takeo A. Kellar, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com tkellar@glancylaw.com hnye@glancylaw.com MILTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Eagle Spirit Sues Over Unlawful STR Ordinance ------------------------------------------------------------------ EAGLE SPIRIT LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and NOBLE SPIRIT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and, Plaintiffs v. MILTON TOWNSHIP, a township within Antrim County, SARA KOPRIVA, in her official capacity as Zoning Administrator of Milton Township, MILTON TOWNSHIP BOARD, CHRIS WEINZAPFEL, in his official capacity as Supervisor of Milton Township and member of the Milton Township Board, JANET BEEBE, in her official capacity as Clerk of Milton Township and member of the Milton Township Board, ELIZABETH ("LIZ") ATKINSON, in her official capacity as Treasurer of Milton Township and member of the Milton Township Board, BRUCE VELIQUETTE, in his official capacity as Trustee of Milton Township and member of the Milton Township Board, JOE RENIS, in his official capacity as Trustee of Milton Township and member of the Milton Township Board, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01672 (W.D. Mich., May 22, 2026) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants in connection with the Milton Township's adoption of an amended vacation rental ordinance to govern short term rentals (STR). When adopting the Section 113.000-.118 (STR Ordinance), Milton Township's Board expressly stated their desire was to forever end short term rentals. Consistent with this objective, the STR Ordinance includes numerous arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational and unconstitutional provisions that arbitrarily and capriciously prohibit a property owner from deriving economic benefits from their property. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now challenge, among other things, (1) the facial validity, on constitutional grounds, of the application of the STR Ordinance to all short-term rentals but not to similarly situated bed and breakfasts; (2) the Ordinance's arbitrary spacing restriction prohibiting STRs within 1,000 feet of each other; (3) the Ordinance's arbitrary "rolling vacancy requirement that prohibits any property from being rented for more than two weeks during any four-week period; and (4) a "six-week annual cap" on the total weeks of permitted STRs in any calendar year. Milton Township is a township located in Antrim County, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel A. Harris, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOEL A. HARRIS, PLLC 21142 Mack Avenue, Suite 100 Grosse Pointe Woods, MI, 48236 Telephone: (313) 886-4505 E-mail: jaharris27@gmail.com - and - Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. Tori Simkovic, Esq. COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 858-2900 E-mail: PSchwiep@CoffeyBurlington.com TSimkovic@CoffeyBurlington.com YVB@CoffeyBurlington.com service@CoffeyBurlington.com MONSANTO CO: Bid to Stay King Case Filed Pending JPML Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class suit captioned RANDALL KING, SCOTT BUTTERFIELD, ROBERT KOEHLER, MICHAEL MERX, AND BRUCE WALDMAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00813 (E.D. Mo.), "Objector Defendants" request a temporary stay of all proceedings pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's (JPML) ruling on transfer of this case to the Roundup Multidistrict Litigation. Specifically, they ask the Court should stay all (1) deadlines imposed by the proposed settlement agreement and (2) proceedings related to any forthcoming motions to remand by the Named Plaintiffs or Monsanto. Monsanto Company as an American corporation and a leading producer of chemical, agricultural, and biochemical products. After being acquired by Bayer AG in 2018, it ceased to exist as a separate entity. Over the last decade, thousands of Roundup users have filed claims against Monsanto alleging Roundup products caused their cancer. Some have managed to get their day in court, resulting in more than $10 billion in paid verdicts or settlements by Monsanto. But thousands of cases remain pending in courts throughout the country. The federal cases have been transferred for coordinated MDL proceedings before Judge Vince G. Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("the MDL Court"). Having presided over the MDL for nearly a decade, Judge Chhabria is uniquely familiar with essentially every issue in the Roundup litigation, including issues relating to proposed class settlements. According to the Objector Defendants, Monsanto has serially removed Roundup cases to federal court to have them transferred to the MDL. Monsanto has always had a preference for litigating Roundup cases in federal court, it has insisted that they should be in the MDL Court, and it has repeatedly argued that any proceedings in transferor courts should be stayed pending transfer to the MDL. But Monsanto has suddenly changed its tune. Even though the federal courts have jurisdiction over this proposed settlement-only class action, Monsanto colluded with the Named Plaintiffs (and their class counsel) to file it in state court. Perhaps that's because Monsanto knows any federal court will quickly reject the proposed settlement. Or maybe it's because Monsanto knows any proposed class settlement filed in federal court will, as it should, inevitably make its way to the MDL Court, notes the the Objector Defendants. But now that the case is in federal court, those same considerations illustrate why a stay of these proceedings is necessary. Given Judge Chhabria's familiarity with the issues here, the JPML is sure to transfer the case to the MDL Court in short order. What sense would it make for any other court to preside over a proposed settlement that purports to resolve every issue that Judge Chhabria has been adjudicating thoughtfully for over for a decade? Transfer to the MDL will "promote the just and efficient" resolution of this proposed class settlement, which by its terms seeks to resolve the "common questions of fact" in every Roundup claim throughout the country. And because that is the most efficient path forward, this Court should stay all proceedings pending the JPML's transfer determination. There is no good reason for this Court to expend its (and the parties') resources while the JPML considers the transfer, the Objector Defendants contend.[BN] The Objector Defendants are represented by: R. Prescott Sifton, Jr., Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 647-6464 E-mail: scott@frazer.law - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 E-mail: ack@kellerpostman.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Contains Toxic Chemicals, Waldrop Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN WALDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and BAYER AG CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00231-H (N.D. Tex., June 4, 2026) is an action against the Defendant alleging that the RoundUp product of the Defendants is unfit for its intended use as it contains an undisclosed active ingredient in addition to glyphosate that is harmful to human health and causes birth defects. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus A. Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MARCUS SMITH, PLLC 1501 Hall Johnson Rd., Ste. 102 Colleyville, TX 76034 Telephone: (817) 251-6924 Email: marcussmithlawyer@protonmail.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Vanweerdhuizen Sues Over Mislabeled Herbicides ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARREL VANWEERDHUIZEN, individually and on behalf of the Estate of BETSY VANWEERDHUIZEN, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01937 (W.D. Wash., June 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Betsy Vanweerdhuizen developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of Monsanto's misconduct and gross negligence with respect to it's the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate -- a dangerous and toxic weed killer. The Defendant researched, processed, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, and distributed Roundup, marketed Roundup, and ultimately sold Roundup to the Plaintiff, says the suit. Monsanto Company provides agricultural products. The Company offers corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, sorghum, and vegetable seeds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry G. Jones, Esq. Colleen Durkin Peterson, Esq. FRIEDMAN RUBIN PLLP 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 501-4446 Facsimile: (206) 623-0794 Email: hjones@friedmanrubin.com cdp@friedmanrubin.com NAB-CW LLC: Cordiota Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORDIOTA, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similar situated, v. NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company; MERRICK BANK CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-TS-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to modify the scheduling order to set a class certification deadline of Sept. 18, 2026. Because no class certification deadline is currently set in the scheduling order, the Plaintiff seeks an amendment to that order to establish such a deadline. The Plaintiff has diligently pursued discovery throughout this case, including by seeking Court assistance when necessary to obtain documents withheld by the Defendants after months of delay. Good cause exists to amend the scheduling order to set a class certification deadline of Sept. 18, 2026. There is no trial date scheduled per the May 27, 2025 scheduling order, nor is a class certification deadline currently set, and there have been no prior modifications of the scheduling order. The Plaintiff served its first set of written discovery requests on May 30, 2025. The Defendant Merrick Bank received one extension, and NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA Merchant Services received two extensions, all granted by the Plaintiff. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X3UqJL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Rome, Esq. Bradley O. Cebeci, Esq. Elizabeth B. Rocha, Esq. ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-0690 Facsimile: (310) 282-0691 E-mail: ERome@romellp.com BCebeci@romellp.com ERocha@romellp.com - and - Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. Alex N. Vandiver, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1234 Facsimile: (801) 536-6111 E-mail: EChristiansen@parsonsbehle.com AVandiver@parsonsbehle.com ecf@parsonsbehle.com NASCO INDUSTRIAL: Cox Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- GUS COX, individually and for others similarly situated v. NASCO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES AND SUPPLY LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00354-REP (D. Idaho, June 4, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from NASCO Industrial Services and Supply LLC for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, NISS employed Cox as one of its Hourly Employees. NISS paid Cox and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. Cox and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, NISS does not pay Cox and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, NISS requires Cox and the other Hourly Employees to attend cross shift meetings, safety meetings, and be suited out in their protective clothing and safety gear, "off the clock" prior the start of their shifts. Likewise, NISS requires Cox and the other Hourly Employees to meet with the crew coming on shift for cross shift meetings and change out of their safety gear and protective clothing "off the clock" following the end of their shifts. But NISS does not pay Cox and the other Hourly Employees for this "off the clock" work before and after their shifts, while on NISS's or its clients' premises, the Plaintiff contends. NISS employed Cox from approximately April 2023 through June 2024. NISS subjected Cox to its pre/post shift off the clock policy and bonus pay scheme. NISS delivers supplies and service to mining and industrial operations to meet rising demand and sustainability imperatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Jill Bolton, Esq. Heidi J. Johnson, Esq. BOLTON LAW PLLC 2317 N. Merritt Creek Loop Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Telephone: (208) 306-3360 Facsimile: (208) 519-3974 E-mail: jill@kjboltonlaw.com heidi@kjboltonlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com NATIONAL EWP: Adams Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ADAMS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL EWP, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00375-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for FLSA conditional certification and issuance of Court-authorized notice to the following collective: "All hourly National EWP employees during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action ("Putative Collective Members")." The suit says that Adams has met the lenient burden for conditional certification. The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against the Defendant on July 23, 2025, alleging (1) National EWP fails to compensate Adams and others similarly situated for all hours worked including overtime hours for work performed off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts; (2) National EWP fails to pay Adams and others similarly situated overtime wages at the required premium overtime rate because it fails to include all remuneration when calculation overtime thereby paying overtime rates less than 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant provides drilling and drilling services to the mining, water, and energy markets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2BR77j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Michael Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: rschreiber@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Ste. 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com NAVER CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ranela Sunga, Stefanie Bonner, Senna Chen, and Justin Bologna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NAVER CORPORATION, a corporation; et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05143-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting a revised class certification schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for substantial completion of Sept. 15, 2026 document productions in response to document requests served on or before Aug. 8, 2025: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' class Jan. 29, 2027 certification motion and the Plaintiffs' expert reports in support of class certification: Deadline for the Defendants' class May 6, 2027 certification oppositions, the Defendants' expert reports in opposition to class certification, and the Defendants' Daubert motions (if any): Hearing on class certification and Daubert Sept. 9, 2027 motions: The Defendants include NAVER CLOUD CORPORATION, a corporation; NAVER CLOUD AMERICA INC. f/k/a NAVER BUSINESS PLATFORM AMERICA INC., a corporation; SNOW CORPORATION, a corporation; SNOW INC., a corporation; LY CORPORATION, f/k/a Z HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a corporation; LINE CORPORATION/LY CORPORATION, a corporation; LINE PLUS CORPORATION, a corporation; and LINE EURO-AMERICAS CORPORATION, a corporation. NAVER provides online search portal and information services in South Korea and internationally. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K2Sc8P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq. Holly K. Nye, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Joshua Samra, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 217-0550 E-mail: lweaver@stranchlaw.com jsamra@stranchlaw.com - and - Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. BIRD MARELLA RHOW LINCENBERG DROOKS & NESSIM LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com - and - Martin J. Christopher Santos, Esq. COHEN WILLIAMS LLP 724 South Spring Street, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 232-5162 Facsimile: (213) 232-5167 E-mail: csantos@cohen-williams.com - and - Nada Djordjevic, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214.7900 E-mail: ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael H. Rubin, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Nicole C. Valco, Esq. Francis J. Acott, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: michael.rubin@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com nicole.valco@lw.com francis.acott@lw.com - and - Purvi G. Patel, Esq. Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq. Anissa Chitour, Esq. Michael G. Ahern, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543 Telephone: (213) 892-5200 Facsimile: (213) 892-5454 E-mail: ppatel@mofo.com ctapernoux@mofo.com achitour@mofo.com mahern@mofo.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Bid to Exclude Ang's Expert Report Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Caraballo entered an order denying the motion to exclude Dr. Xiaolimg Lim Ang's expert report. The Plaintiffs are student loa borrowers who partook in income-driven repayment (IDR) programs, and seek recovery for the allegedly wrongful business practices maintained by the Defendants. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXGGIO at no extra charge.[CC] NETWORK HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Thomas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- STARLANITA THOMAS and MARQUISIA MELTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. NETWORK HEALTH, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-1001 (E.D. Wis., June 4, 2026) is a collective and class action arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals work or worked remotely for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt Member Experience Representatives ("MERs") in the United States assisting its members with health insurance plans. Pursuant to Defendant's company-wide policies and procedures, it failed to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including statutory mandated overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in a single workweek. Specifically, Defendant's time rounding policy is implemented in a non-neutral fashion that results in MERs disproportionately losing time worked due to both unlawful time rounding and because it required the performance of compensable work before clocking into the computerized timekeeping system. The Plaintiffs and Wisconsin Class members suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's common and systemic timekeeping and payroll policies and practices, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Classes, were violated. They also seek an award of unpaid wages, an award of liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant penalties and an award of attorneys' fees and costs to make them, the Collective, and the Class, whole for damages they suffered, and to ensure that they and future workers will not be subjected by Defendant to such illegal conduct in the future. Plaintiffs Starlanita Thomas and Marquisia Melton are Wisconsin residents who have worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt MERs in Wisconsin within the last two years. Defendant NETWORK HEALTH, INC. is a Wisconsin-based health plan that provides a patient-centric, fully integrated approach to health care and health insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Henson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY, INC. d/b/a RXNT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02213-ABA (D. Md., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of Unfair/Deceptive Statute, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between March 1, 2026, and March 3, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Networking Technology, Inc., doing business as RXNT, is a software development company based in Annapolis, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com NEW YORK, NY: Z.Q. Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs shall move pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order granting their motion for class certification in its entirety. The Plaintiffs shall rely upon their memorandum of law in support of their motion to class certification, the declaration of Sarah E. Brand and the exhibits thereto, the declaration of Joshua Kipnees, the declaration of Rebecca C. Shore, and all other pleadings, papers, and proceedings to date. The New York City Department of Education manages the city's public school system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NYFdjM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Kipnees, Esq. Kathryn Bi, Esq. Dakotah Burns, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 - and - Rebecca C. Shore, Esq. Brianna Kitchelt, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK, INC. 151 West 30th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10001 NIKE INC: Wiretaps Website Users' Communication, Hartigan Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAEANON HARTIGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03417-AJB-JAC (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the right to privacy guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, and the California common law prohibiting intrusion upon seclusion. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for intercepting, recording, decoding, capturing, disclosing, and using the contents of Plaintiff’s and Class Members' electronic communications with Defendant's Website, as well as their routing, addressing, and signaling information, and for aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same, by means of a tracking pixel (Meta Pixel) and related tracking technologies embedded in Defendant's Website. The Meta Pixel and related technologies did more than capture routing and signaling data. As Plaintiff's own off-Facebook activity confirms, they intercepted the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications with the Website -- including the full URL strings and the specific products and content they viewed -- and transmitted those contents to Meta and other third parties contemporaneously with, the users' communications with Defendant. The Defendant owns and operates the website https://www.nike.com/, through which consumers in California and elsewhere browse, customize, and purchase athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment, and access product launches, training and membership resources, order fulfillment, and customer account services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Spener L. Pfeiff, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Spencer@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Sets Scheduling Conference for July 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS FLORES, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-05645-MCS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order setting scheduling conference for July 27, 2026. The case has been assigned to Mark C. Scarsi. This matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on the above date in Courtroom 7C of the First Street Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012. If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff promptly shall do so and shall file proofs of service within three days thereafter. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court will set a date by which motions to amend the pleadings or add parties must be heard. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed by 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. A request to continue the Scheduling Conference will be granted only for good cause. Northrop designs, develops, and manufactures various defense electronics and systems. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gq12SR at no extra charge.[CC] NULASTIN INC: Sued Over Unsolicited Text Message Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA VILLAVERDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. NULASTIN, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-009220 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fla., June 3, 2026) is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by making Nulastin Text Message Sales Calls to Plaintiffs, and in doing so, transmitted to Plaintiffs' caller identification service a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each violation. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, further seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes Nulastin Text Message Sales Calls. Plaintiff, Amanda Villaverde resides in Broward County, Florida. Defendant Nulastin, Inc. is a Foreign Corporation which sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com NUTRIEN AG: Faces Live Suit Over NPK Fertilizers' Inflated Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIVE OAK FARMS, a California Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; NUTRIEN, LTD; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-04262-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for NPK Fertilizers sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and anticompetitive activities cease. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States. 4. Among the victims of the conspiracy are direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers from the Defendants, including agricultural retailers, fertilizer mixers, members of farming associations, farm and planting partnerships/companies, and individual farmers and growers. To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2021, the exact date being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, Defendants conspired to artificially inflate the price of NPK Fertilizers. The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused and continues to cause direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizers sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories throughout the Class Period, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, says the suit. Nutrien Ag Solutions is the global retail division, and wholly owned subsidiary of Nutrien Ltd., with headquarters located at 3005 Rocky Mountain Avenue, Loveland, Colorado. Nutrien Ag Solutions is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of nitrogen, phosphate and potash NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com NUTRIEN AG: Live Oak Sues Over NPK Fertilizer Price-fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- LIVE OAK FARMS, a California Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; NUTRIEN, LTD; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-at-02351 (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. This lawsuit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from January 1, 2021, until Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct and anticompetitive activities cease. Among the victims of the conspiracy are direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers from the Defendants, including agricultural retailers, fertilizer mixers, members of farming associations, farm and planting partnerships/companies, and individual farmers and growers (the "Class"). To implement their price-fixing conspiracy, beginning at least as early as January 1, 2021, the exact date being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, the Defendants conspired to artificially inflate the price of NPK Fertilizers. The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused and continues to cause direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supracompetitive prices for NPK Fertilizers sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories throughout the Class Period, says the suit. Plaintiff Live Oak Farms is a diversified farming operation with its roots in California dating back to 1929. The Defendants are direct competitors and among the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com - and - William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 Facsimile: (212) 688-0783 E-mail: wban@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Danielle M. Weiss, Esq. Jordan LaPorta, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com dweiss@barrack.com OHIO: Fails to Provide Access to Academic Curriculum, B.H. Says --------------------------------------------------------------- B.H. and K.H, individually and on behalf of D.H., a Minor; T.P., individually and on behalf of E.P., : a Minor; P.H-C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a Minor; and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce; and Stephen Dackin, in his official capacity as Director of the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce; Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00631-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 22, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint because Defendant Ohio Department of Education and Workforce has failed to provide Plaintiffs, and the class of students with disabilities and their parents that they seek to represent, with the procedural safeguards and due process rights they are entitled to under IDEA, resulting in substantial educational harm and the denial of a free and appropriate public education. The complaint alleged a variety of violations of IDEA by the Warren County Educational Service Center and the school districts, including but not limited to a failure to provide access to academic curriculum, failure to implement individualized education programs, and failure to provide appropriate behavioral interventions, that resulted in the denial of FAPE to the students. The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce is a public agency headquartered in Franklin County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige Peal, Esq. OHIO DISABILITY RIGHTS LAW AND POLICY CENTER, INC. DISABILITY RIGHTS OHIO 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-7264 Facsimile: (614) 644-1888 E-mail: ppeal@disabilityrightsohio.org - and - Michael Boyle, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: mboyle@bgandg.com OMNI HOTELS: Biscaha Sues Over Unwanted Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------- JOE BISCAHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI HOTELS CORPORATION D/B/A OMNI HOTELS & RESORTS., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23640-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2026) seeks to secure redress for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Allegedly, the Defendant engaged in aggressive telephonic sales call campaigns to consumers with no regards for consumers' rights under the FTSA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Omni Hotels Corporation provides hotel and resort services to consumers, throughout the United States and the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com PALESTINIAN YOUTH: Helmann Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONEN HELMANN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Ronen Helmann, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Palestinian Youth Movement, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05704-SVW-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On July 17, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On Aug. 13, 2025, Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an Order granting the motion of Palestinian Youth Movement, Remo Ibrahim, and Courtney Lenna Schirf to dismiss the third amended complaint and denying CodePink's motion dismiss. The claims against Palestinian Youth Movement, Remo Ibrahim, and Courtney Lenna Schirf are dismissed with prejudice. All remaining claims are set for trial on January 13, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Helmann, et al. v. Palestinian Youth Movement, et al., Case No. 26-3604, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 4, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 9, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on June 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 25, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RONEN HELMANN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Defendants-Appellees PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT, et al. are represented by: Thomas Bradford Harvey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS B. HARVEY 365 E. Avenue de Los Arboles, Suite 226 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (314) 482-3342 PAVE IT FORWARD: Letendre Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Layoff ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER LETENDRE, ARISTIDES ENAMORADO SEGURA, SAMANTHA CENIZAL, AND SHANNON NOLEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAVE IT FORWARD LOGISTICS, LLC and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00754 (M.D. Tenn., June 3, 2026) is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs their statutory minimum wages for the hours worked. The Plaintiffs seek payment for unpaid work, liquidated damages, and attorney fees on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, that they were deprived of due to the Defendants' violations of the FLSA. Additionally, the Defendants violated the WARN Act by failing to notify Plaintiffs of the impending plant closure 60 days prior to the final day of operation. The Defendants willfully terminated all employees within the operating unit of PIF, says the suit. The Plaintiffs worked as employees for both Defendants, as delivery associates and dispatch associates. Pave it Forward Logistics was a delivery service partner (DSP) company that provided local delivery or last-mile delivery services for Amazon.com. Amazon Logistics is an arm of Amazon.com that coordinates, provides business support, materials, packages, leasing, and instruction to all DSPs in the national Amazon.com system. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Street, Esq. Harrison Salter Blowers, Esq. 1625 Broadway, Suite 602 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 850-0632 E-mail: street@eclaw.com salter@eclaw.com PENNSYLVANIA: Restricts Veterans Service, Doe Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE AND JOHN DOES 1 through 100, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated disabled veterans v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-01515-KM (M.D. Pa., June 3, 2026) challenges the exclusion, confusion, retaliation, and denial of equal access that disabled veterans experienced when Defendants controlled, funded, promoted, administered, endorsed, restricted, or preserved Wills for Heroes, Wills for Veterans, veterans service, legal aid, bar association, court connected, and public service legal structures. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief because disabled veterans were promised public service estate planning access, then received shifting eligibility statements, committee exclusion, event suspension, and retaliation against the people who tried to correct the problem. Plaintiff Jane/John Doe is a disabled veteran who brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated disabled veterans who needed clear, equal, nonretaliatory access to estate planning, veterans service legal programs, Wills for Heroes, Wills for Veterans, and related public service legal assistance. The Defendants participated in, controlled, funded, supported, ratified, failed to correct, benefitted from, or preserved the legal service, bar association, public service, veterans service, court connected, disciplinary, funding, or event access structures challenged in this complaint. Other Defendants include American Bar Association; Bloomsburg Fair Association; Matthew W. Brann; Heath Brosius; Jessica Chapman; William R. Christman III; Mary Beth Clark; Clinton County Bar Association; Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Mark J. Conway; Court of Judicial Discipline; Robert Cravitz; Doe Defendants; Federal Judicial Center; Lori R. Hackenberg; International Legal Aid Group; Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania; Heather Kelly; Brian Kerstetter; Robert Leadbeter; Legal Services Corporation; Kathleen Lincoln; Gabriele Miller-Wagner; Lori Molloy; Lycoming County Law Association; Jenna Ann Neidig; North Penn Legal Services; Inc.; Northumberland County Prothonotary's Office; Office of Attorney General; Office of Disciplinary Counsel; Pennsylvania Bar Association; Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners; Pennsylvania Department of Human Services; Pennsylvania Department of Case 4:26-cv-01515-KM Document 1 Filed 06/03/26 Page 2 of 570 Military and Veterans Affairs; Pennsylvania General Assembly; Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network; Inc.; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Michael F.J. Piecuch; Jeffrey Rowe; Jamie Saleski; Alexandra Sholley; Timothy Smith; Snyder County; Snyder County STOP Coalition; Sarah Stigerwalt-Egan; K. Michael Sullivan; David Andrew Strouse; Transitions Legal Center; Transitions of PA; David K. Trevaskis; Brian Ulmer; Union County; Union-Snyder County Bar Association; Union County Criminal Justice Advisory Board; Union County Mental Health Advisory Committee; Union County STOP Coalition; United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; United States Congress; United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; United States Department of Health and Human Services; and United States Judicial Conference. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is the administrative arm of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige Martineau, Esq. SUSQUEHANNA LEGAL AID FOR ADULTS AND YOUTH (SLAAY) 218 Pine Street Williamsport, PA 17701 PEPSICO INC: Darr Sues Over Gatorade's Deceptive Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN DARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GATORADE COMPANY and PEPSICO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06075 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2026) seeks monetary and injunctive relief against the Defendants for violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, other states' consumer fraud statutes, and the common-law prohibitions on unjust enrichment and fraud. The violations stem from the Defendants' false and misleading claims appear on the "Lower Sugar" Gatorade products' front labels and across channels through which Defendants sell and market them. The Defendants prominently market these products as containing "No Artificial Flavors" and being "Naturally Flavored" or "Naturally Flavored with Other Natural Flavors." The Defendants' false and misleading statements caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes to pay a price premium for these products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now maintains that these products contain artificial citric acid and sodium citrate. PepsiCo, Inc. owns, manufactures, and markets the Gatorade brand of sports drink. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law PLAZA HOME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Grubb Says ----------------------------------------------------- KEVIN GRUBB, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03403-H-VET (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) arises out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on the Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information. The specific information compromised in the Data Breach includes Plaintiff's and Class Members’ personally identifiable information including name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license or other government identification, and information related to mortgage loan applications and servicing. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII -- which was entrusted to Defendant, their officials, and agents -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Plaza Home operates as a mortgage lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (786) 289-9469 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com PREMIUM BRANDS: Eugenio and Yogev Sue Over Privacy Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ESTRELLA EUGENIO and REVITAL YOGEV, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04866 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2026) seeks to address the Defendant's alleged violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. When Plaintiffs and other consumers visit Defendant's e-commerce websites, displays to them a popup cookie consent banner, which is identical on each of the websites. Defendant's cookie banners disclose that the websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. Contrary to users' express choice to opt out of cookies and tracking technologies on the websites, Defendant caused cookies, including the third parties' cookies, to be sent to Plaintiffs and other visitors' browsers, stored on their devices, and transmitted to the third parties along with user data. These cookies permitted the Third Parties to track and collect data in real time regarding the Websites' visitors' behaviors and communications, including their browsing history, visit history, website interactions, user input data, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers, and/or geolocation data--including whether a user is located in California. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, use of pen register in violation of the CIPA, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in New York, NY, Premium Brands Opco LLC owns, operates, markets, and manages several women's apparel and retail brands, including Loft, Ann Taylor, and Lane Bryant, through both brick-and-mortar retail stores and the websites. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Hooks Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOOKS and THEON THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. and ASSURANCE IQ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06627 (D.N.J., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Michigan Wage Law. Plaintiff Hooks worked for the Defendants as a customer service representative from approximately July 2023 through approximately June 2024, while Plaintiff Thomson was employed as a remote-based insurance agent from approximately February 2023 through approximately May 2024. Prudential Financial, Inc. is a global financial services company based in New Jersey. Assurance IQ, Inc. is a consumer solutions platform provider, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paolo Meireles, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. Theresa Waugh, Esq. Shavitz Law Group, PA 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com twaugh@shavitzlaw.com QUALITY BUILDING: Bravo Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL -------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN BRAVO, ALEX ROMAN ALVACORA, CRISTIAN MARQUEZ, DIEGO GUALLPA, EDWIN ROLANDO NARVAEZ ALVACORA AND FAUSTO LEONARDO ALVACORA CHIMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. QUALITY BUILDING CONTRACTOR INC. (D/B/A QUALITY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION), RUSSELL GALINDO, PETER PAVLICA (A/K/A PETER PALICA), and ROGER TORRES, Case No. 1:26-cv-04674 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) seeks to recover overtime and wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor law. According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff Bravo to start working 30 minutes prior to his scheduled start time and work an additional 30 minutes past his scheduled departure time every day and did not pay him for the additional time he worked. In addition, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff Bravo for at least three weeks of Defendants never granted Plaintiff Bravo any breaks or meal periods of any kind. Although Plaintiff Bravo was required to keep track of his start and stop times by signing in and signing out on a piece of paper, defendants' records did not accurately reflect his actual hours worked. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Quality Building Contractor. They were employed as bricklayers, water proofers, roofers, scaffolding attendants, and foreman in a construction project located at 2 Beekman Place in Manhattan, New York. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company headquartered at 39-12 Crescent St, Long Island City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 RAY MARKS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ray Marks Co. LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06589 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, https://rachaelray.com https:/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff See's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the Website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. The Website is an online platform through which consumers can browse and offers products and services offered by the Defendant. The online platform allows the user to explore the restaurant menu and access pizza restaurant services, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law RCI INTERNET: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McFadden Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY MCFADDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI INTERNET SERVICES, INC. and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04469 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or around March 19, 2026. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. RCI Internet Services, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. is a company that owns and operates adult nightclubs, sports bars, and other services with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com RED FERN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Perez Says --------------------------------------------------- EDIXON ANTONIO RUIZ PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED FERN BROOKLYN LLC, and SARAH ROGACKI as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03329 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at the Defendant. Plaintiff EDIXON ANTONIO RUIZ PEREZ residing in Brooklyn, New York, was employed by Defendants as a gardener, painter, cleaner, and truck uploader at RED FERN BROOKLYN LLC from April 2025 until March 2026. Defendant RED FERN BROOKLYN LLC through its agents, officers, managers and supervisors, maintained direct control, oversight, and direct supervision over its employees including Plaintiff in the performance of his duties, which among others include scheduling of work and payment of wages. Defendant SARAH ROGACKI is an agent of RED FERN BROOKLYN LLC. The complaint relates that the Defendants were aware that they were not properly compensating Plaintiff and therefore willfully chose to continue to violate the New York Labor Law by not paying Plaintiff proper overtime wages. As a direct result of Defendants' violations and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm, adds the complaint As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-263-9591 Facsimile: 718-263-959 RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mike The Printer, Inc., v. Ricoh USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court signs, as modified, the Plaintiff's proposed statement of decision granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification, lodged with the Court on May 20, 2026. The court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Ricoh is an information-management and digital-services company that sells printer products and provides related maintenance services to business customers, dealers, and federal and state governments. A copy of the Court's order dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xQe4Jk at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT BOSCH: Conspires to Fix HVAC Equipment Prices, Palomino Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PALOMINO HEATING LLC, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, ROBERT BOSCH BMGH, BOSCH THERMOTECHNOLOGY CORP., BHC RESIDENTIAL & LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC f/k/a JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, BOSCH HOME COMFORT LLC f/k/a JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, LLC, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, INC., THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., AAON, INC. (a Nevada corporation), AAON, INC., (an Oklahoma corporation), AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11811-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 2, 2026) is a class action arising from an unlawful conspiracy among the largest manufacturers of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in the United States to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices at supracompetitive levels, in violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, from at least January 1, 2020, through the present, the Defendants, who collectively control over 90% of the U.S. HVAC Equipment market, engaged in a coordinated scheme to artificially inflate prices for HVAC Equipment, harming indirect purchasers like Plaintiff and the proposed class. This conspiracy, executed under the guise of responding to global events and inflationary pressures, has resulted in record profits for Defendants while imposing significant financial harm on consumers and businesses across the country, says the suit. As a result of the conspiracy, says the complaint, Defendants achieved record-high profits and profit margins, boasting about their "pricing discipline" and "positive price realization" during earnings calls and industry conferences. For instance, Lennox's profit margins nearly doubled from 8% in 2007 to 18% in 2023, while Trane's revenue grew from $12 billion in 2020 to $21 billion in 2025, with a corresponding expansion in its adjusted EBITDA margin, it adds. The Plaintiff and class members suffered an antitrust injury as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct by paying illegally inflated prices for HVAC Equipment. Palomino Heating LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability Corporation that operates an HVAC Equipment installation business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard Mantese, Esq. Kathryn Regan Eisenstein, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, PC 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com keisenstein@manteselaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Laura K. Mummert, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 E-mail: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com ROBERT LUNA: Steward Third Class Cert Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART et al., v. ROBERT LUNA et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification. As the Court has given the Plaintiffs "several opportunities to correct their failed attempts," the denial is with prejudice. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs established numerosity, commonality, and typicality as required under Rule 23(a)(1)–(3). However, the Plaintiffs, once again, failed to demonstrate adequacy as required under Rule 23(a)(4), and predominance and superiority as required Rule 23(b)(3). Thus, the Plaintiffs fail to persuade the Court that their "methodology" is sufficiently reliable as a common methodology such that damages "could feasibly and efficiently be calculated once the common liability questions are adjudicated." The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal and state law when LASD officers deployed tear gas, pepper spray, and pepper balls against them while the Plaintiffs were in detention. The Plaintiffs move to certify either of two proposed classes: (1) "Unit 711 Chemical Weapons Area Saturation Class A," which the Plaintiffs define as "Pretrial detainees in Unit 711 on April 21–22, 2022, who were subjected to the use of area saturation with chemical agents—tear gas, Clear Out and pepper balls"; or (2) "Unit 711 Chemical Weapons Area Saturation Class B," which the Plaintiffs define as "Pretrial detainees in Unit 711 on April 21–22, 2022, who were subjected to the use of area saturation with chemical weapons—tear gas and Clear Out." A copy of the Court's order dated June 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l4Hkrg at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERTO'S DETAILING: Faces Legate Suit Over Unpaid Overtime & Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUKE LEGATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERTO'S DETAILING, INC., and ROBERTO Q. PORTILLO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00974-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages and tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a detailer from May 1, 2022 through on or about December 26, 2025. Roberto's Detailing, Inc. is a car detailing services provider based in Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen D. Arnold, Esq. Whitney Morgan, Esq. ALLEN D. ARNOLD, LLC 6 Office Park Circle, Suite 209 Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 252-1550 Email: ada@allenarnoldlaw.com whitney@allenarnoldlaw.com ROCKET COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Rocket Companies, Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2026, that disclosing that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated class and derivative suits. On November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, captioned Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc., No. 23-cv-02453 ("Cabezas"), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of persons impacted by a cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31, 2023. The class action complaint alleged claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty, based upon allegations that the Company did not employ reasonable and adequate security measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the cybersecurity incident. The Cabezas complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of costs, attorney fees, and expenses, among other relief. Between November 2023 and February 7, 2024, 26 additional putative class actions were filed against the Company asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as those asserted in the Cabezas action. The Cabezas court consolidated all 26 pending cases with the Cabezas action, and the 26 separate matters were administratively closed. By order dated June 25, 2024, the Cabezas court set July 15, 2024 as the last day for plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2024, plaintiffs Jose Ignacio Garrigo, Izabela Debowcsyk, Joshua Watson, Brett Padalecki, Chris Leptiak, Denver Dale, Emily Burke, Mary Crawford, Kay Pollard, Jonathan Josi, Jeff Price, Mychael Marrone, Katy Ross, Lynette Williams, Karen Lynn Williams, Gary Allen, Larry Siegal, Rohit Burani, Elizabeth Curry, Justin Snider, Linda Hansen, and Deira Robertson (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of themselves and an alleged putative nationwide class of "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was accessed and/or acquired as a result of the Data Breach announced by Mr. Cooper in or around November 2023," as well as 15 state subclasses. Plaintiffs asserted seven of the same claims as in the original Cabezas complaint, including (1) breach of express contract, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) negligence, (4) negligence per se, (5) unjust enrichment, (6) invasion of privacy, and (7) breach of confidence, as well as a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief and 19 state law claims. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement and restitution, and an award of costs, attorney fees, and expenses, among other relief. The Cabezas court set September 13, 2024 as the last day for defendants to move to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On September 13, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Company filed a reply in further support of its motion on March 27, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the court issued an Opinion and Order on defendants' motion which granted the motion to dismiss in part. The order granted the motion as to the standing arguments on the declaratory judgment claim and injunctive relief but otherwise held that plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims. The order also granted the motion as to the breach of express contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence claims, and denied the motion to dismiss as to the breach of implied contract and negligence claims. The court deferred ruling on the negligence per se and individual state law claims until a ruling on class certification. On August 18, 2025, the court issued a scheduling order setting plaintiffs' deadline to serve the motion for class certification as November 24, 2025. The scheduling order further provided that class certification discovery closes on March 30, 2026, defendants' deadline to oppose the class certification motion is April 14, 2026, plaintiffs' deadline to serve a reply in further support of class certification is May 14, 2026, and the class certification briefing submission date is May 29, 2026. Separately, on February 22, 2024, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned Smith v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The derivative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution and indemnification, among others, arising out of substantially the same facts and circumstances as the cybersecurity incident and the related putative consumer class actions. The plaintiff in the derivative action alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants failed to implement and maintain adequate internal controls and cybersecurity protections, and that these failures purportedly exposed the Company to the claims asserted in the consumer data breach litigation. On May 10, 2024, the parties to the Smith derivative action filed a stipulation and proposed order to stay the derivative case pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated consumer class action. By order dated May 15, 2024, the court granted the requested stay and directed the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Following the court's July 22, 2025 Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss and the subsequent scheduling order entered on August 18, 2025, the parties submitted a joint status report, and the stay of the derivative action remains in effect pending further order of the court. Rocket Companies, Inc. is a Detroit-based holding company whose flagship business is Rocket Mortgage, a leading U.S. mortgage lender, along with a portfolio of fintech, real estate, and consumer finance brands. The company provides digital-first lending, servicing, and related financial services to consumers nationwide. ROSEMONT HOTELS: Uses Synthetic Fragrances in Hotels, Kramer Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSEMONT HOTELS INC. and ETTE HOTEL, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-01231 (M.D. Fla., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of employing synthetic fragranced products in its facilities despite actual or constructive knowledge of their harmful and disabling effects. According to the complaint, the 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 seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Rosemont Hotels Inc. is a hospitality company based in Illinois. Ette Hotel is a hospitality company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cortney Beth Szafran, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: cbs@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com SEATTLE CHILDREN'S: Dunn Sues Over Sensitive Information Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- GRANT DUNN, on behalf of his minor child, S.P.D., and all others similarly situated, LINDZEE MCKATIMS, on behalf of her minor child, R.M., and all others similarly situated, and LINH-AI LE, on behalf of her minor child, A.T., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEATTLE CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01774 (W.D. Wash., May 22, 2026) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful disclosure of sensitive health information. Through the Seattle Children's website, https://www.seattlechildrens.org, patients can search for doctors by name or by specialty, schedule and modify appointments, view medical records and test results, and pay their bills. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other parents of patients of Seattle Children's, their children's private personal and health information was not actually being kept private. Instead, through the Website, Defendant collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive information pertaining to its patients, including the fact that they are patient of Seattle Children's, the specific condition they are seeking treatment for, the specific doctor they are seeking or receiving treatment from, and information relating to bills and financial aid to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Tealium Inc., through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools, says the suit. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Seattle Children's Hospital provides comprehensive pediatric care, including specialized medical services, urgent care, and research programs to children across Washington, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - 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 - and - Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com SECURITY USA: Joseph Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO JOSEPH, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SECURITY USA, INC. and RAMI HAHITTI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04693 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime, due to time-shaving, (2) unreimbursed uniform maintenance costs, (3) statutory penalties, (4) liquidated damages; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against him, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, shortly after Plaintiff made a lawful complaint concerning his wages and seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) economic damages, (2) punitive damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a security guard in January 2024. His employment with Defendants ended on November 6, 2025, when he was terminated in retaliation for making a lawful complaint regarding Defendants' underpayment of wages. Security USA, Inc operates a security and private investigation company which provides services to sites throughout New York, New Jersey, and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 SHELL CHEMICAL: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLYNN, MICHAEL NAUMOFF, and BRANDON SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SHELL CHEMICAL APPALACHIA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00193-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to amend scheduling order as follows: -- Date by which class certification fact discovery shall be completed: Sept. 25, 2026. -- Date by which the Plaintiffs' expert reports as to class certification shall be served: Oct. 16, 2026 -- Date by which the Defendant's expert reports as to class certification shall be served: Dec. 18, 2026. -- Date by which depositions of class certification experts must be completed: Feb. 5, 2027. -– Date by which the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed: Feb. 19, 2027. -- Date by which the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed: March 19, 2027. -- Date by which the Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of class certification, if any, shall be filed; April 9, 2027. The Defendant operates a major petrochemical complex in Potter Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnVdpA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. Trenten Ingell, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com lsheets@lsccounsel.com mrobb@lsccounsel.com Ingell@lsclassaction.com - and - James E. DePasquale, Esq. 1302 Grant Building St. 310 Grant St. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (609) 394-8585 E-mail: jim.depasquale@verizon.net The Defendant is represented by: Amy Joseph Coles, Esq. Jayme Butcher, Esq. P. Gavin Eastgate, Esq. Roy W. Arnold, Esq. Brandy S. Ringer, Esq. Christina Manfredi McKinley, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 501 Grant Street, Suite 850 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 932-2800 E-mail: amy.coles@blankrome.com jayme.butcher@blankrome.com gavin.eastgate@blankrome.com roy.arnold@blankrome.com brandy.ringer@blankrome.com christina.mckinley@blankrome.com SISTONE INC: Garcia-Lara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sistone, Inc. The case is styled as Roberto Garcia-Lara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sistone, Inc., Case No. 26STCV17415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sistone Inc. has evolved into a full service Fabrication and Installation Company, specializing in natural stone and tile.[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 SKIN SPA NEW YORK: Rene Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelina Rene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKIN SPA NEW YORK PLLC, SKIN SPA NEW YORK - BOSTON LLC, & THOMAS ELZNER, (Mass. Commonwealth Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 3, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Sections 148 & 150 (the "Wage Act") for failure to pay proper compensation. The Plaintiff was classified as an hourly employee and paid, at first, the state minimum wage of $15.00 per hour. During her employment, Defendants eventually raised the Plaintiff's hourly rate to $17.00 per hour. At no point during her employment did the Defendants pay the Plaintiff on a weekly basis. At no point during her employment did the Defendants pay the Plaintiff on a biweekly basis. Defendants paid the Plaintiff on a semi-monthly basis. On June l, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Attorney General's Office concerning the Defendants' violations of the Wage Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in January 2025 as a Spa Coordinator. Skin Spa New York PLLC is a professional limited liability company organized under the laws of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-723-7700 Fax: 617-227-0313 Email: shafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com SODEXO SA: Class Cert Opposition in Platt Suit Due June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carter entered an order the following briefing schedules shall apply: Motion for class certification: May 29, 2026 Opposition: June 29, 2026 Reply: July 13, 2026 Hearing: July 27, 2026 Motion for summary judgment: Sept. 7, 2026 The discovery cut-off date shall be set for Monday, Aug. 24, 2026. Oral arguments shall be waived as to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as well as any motion for summary judgment filed by either party. Any such motion will be decided on the papers without oral argument. However, if at any point the Court finds it necessary, parties shall be required to appear in-person to argue their motions. Sodexo is a French-based, multinational corporation founded in 1966 by Pierre Bellon. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=As6FN8 at no extra charge.[CC] SONIDA SENIOR: Smith Sues Over Unauthorized Charter Amendment ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONIDA SENIOR LIVING, INC.; CONVERSANT DALLAS PARKWAY (A) LP; CONVERSANT DALLAS PARKWAY (B) LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00654-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2026) is an action arising out of an unauthorized charter amendment. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the charter amendment benefitted Sonida's majority stockholder at the time, at the expense of Sonida's unaffiliated stockholders, who were deprived on their statutory right to vote on the amendment. Sonida Senior Living Inc. is an owner, operator and investor in independent living, assisted living and memory care communities and services for senior adults. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Stephen C. Childs, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 Telephone: (212) 840-6300 - and - Richard Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR: Avila-Soto Seeks OK of Class Action Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE DE JESUS AVILA-SOTO, et al., v. SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR CANE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01392-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order approving the proposed class action notice and exclusion form for distribution to the class certified by the Court. The attached notice and exclusion form are in English but, upon approval by the Court, will be translated into Spanish prior to distribution since all class members are H-2A workers from Mexico who maintain their permanent residences in Mexico. Class Counsel has engaged a third-party administrator that will send the notices via e-mail and text message to the class members with a version of the class notice also available on a website for class members. The administrator will follow-up with a mailing to any class members for whom text messages or emails are undeliverable. Class Counsel will file notice with the Court when the sending of notices has been completed. Class members will have 60 days from when notices are first sent in which to return any exclusion forms to remove themselves as members of the class. South Central is an organization involved in agricultural support activities, specifically focusing on sugar crops and machine harvesting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wdxXoI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Knoepp, Esq. Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com - and - Daniel Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com SOUTHWIRE COMPANY: Hudson Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Stormi Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. SUCV2026000347 was removed from the Superior Court of Carroll County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia on June 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00118-LMM. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, current and former Southwire employees, and contractors who provide services to Southwire provided personally identifiable information ("PII") to Southwire "to receive employment." The Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 7279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Britany A. Wessan, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Email: britany@almeidalawgroup.com luke@almeidalawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Allegra J. Lawrence, Esq. Rodney J. Ganske, Esq. KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 400-3350 Facsimile: (404) 888-9577 Email: lawrence@khlawfirm.com ganske@khlawfirm.com - and - Marcus A. Christian, Esq. Tara More, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 Email: mchristian@mayerbrown.com tmore@mayerbrown.com STACKADAPT INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Miguel Rodriguez and Maya Churchill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STACKADAPT INC., a Canadian corporation, and STACKADAPT US, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. CGC-26-634782 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05313. The Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint relate to Defendants' alleged violations of various privacy and wiretapping laws. The Complaint contains the following causes of action against all Defendants: Violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 631; Violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 638.51; Violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 632; Violation of Cal. Penal Code Section 502; Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1) et seq.; Violation of the California Constitution Art. 1, Section 1; Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; and Common Law Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq. Antonia I. Stabile, Esq. Harry Libarle, Esq. VENABLE LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.653.3750 Facsimile: 415.653.3755 Email: jpcart@venable.com aistabile@venable.com hlibarle@venable.com STANDARD INSURANCE: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Insurance Company. The case is styled as Syhelee Jones, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003420 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2026). The case type is not stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Standard Insurance -- https://www.standard-insurance.com/ -- offers the most comprehensive car insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com STATION CASINOS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ferretta Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROCCI FERRETTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATION CASINOS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01693 (D. Nev., June 4, 2026) arises from thed Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack. According to the complaint, the Defendant became aware of the Data Breach on March 5, 2026. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, financial account numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, payment information, card information, and Social Security numbers. Thus, the Defendant failed to implement reasonable, industry standard cybersecurity safeguards sufficient to detect malicious activity in a timely manner, including monitoring, logging, and alerting systems such as EDR, XDR, data loss prevention tools, and centralizing alerting and logging. The Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the dark web as a result of the Data Breach. Given the Defendant's failure in even the most basic requirements of cybersecurity, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects Private Information, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of individuals who received services from Defendant recently disclosed that it suffered unauthorized activity on its IT Network that resulted in the exfiltration of files containing sensitive Private Information. The Defendant is an American hotel and casino company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com STATION FILM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Yearwood Due Nov. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO A. YEARWOOD, v. STATION FILM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09745-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving the stipulation to modify the class certification deadlines. The court orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for class certification is set to Nov. 14, 2026. 2. The Parties' prior stipulation to continue deadline to file class certification motion is denied as moot. 3. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is set to Dec. 18, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Station Film is a bi-coastal commercial and film production company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ezFeQ6 at no extra charge.[CC] STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Conklin Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CONKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01549 (E.D. Va., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around February 25, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Strategic Education, Inc. is a private education company based in Herndon, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 Email: rrodriguez@sirillp.com - and - Kennedy Brian, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: kbrian@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Hampton Suit Over Compromised User Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ COURTNEY HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01526-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between February 23, 2026 and February 25, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Strategic Education, Inc. is a private education company based in Herndon, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.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 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Williams Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01527 (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, 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's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Strategic Education, Inc. provides educational services. The College offers working adults undergraduate and graduate degree programs in business and public administration, accounting, and information technology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gonzalez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01535 (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. SEI also owns and operates two education technology services, Workforce Edge and Sophia Learning. As part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains customers' PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. Between approximately February 23 and February 26, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and extracted Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. The Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved. The Defendant reported to the Maine Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 2,673 Maine residents. The Defendant reported to the Texas Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 100,845 Texas residents. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff who provided her sensitive personal information, including Social Security number, to Defendant as part of attending Capella University from 2022-2025. The Defendant is an education company that owns private education institutions Capella University, Strayer University, and the Jack Welch Management Institute. SEI also owns and operates two education technology services, Workforce Edge and Sophia Learning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 E-mail: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAMEKA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01539-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va., June 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. SEI owns and operates two education technology services, Workforce Edge and Sophia Learning. As part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains customers' PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant. Between approximately February 23 and February 26, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and extracted Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. The Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved. The Defendant reported to the Maine Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 2,673 Maine residents. The Defendant reported to the Texas Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 100,845 Texas residents, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff who provided her sensitive personal information, including Social Security number, to Defendant as part of attending Capella University from 2022-2025. The Defendant is an education company that owns private education institutions Capella University, Strayer University, and the Jack Welch Management Institute. SEI also owns and operates two education technology services, Workforce Edge and Sophia Learning.[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 Telephone: 703-934-6377 Facsimile: 703-934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro - and - Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com SUN LIFE: Kelly Balks at Reduction of Disability Insurance Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAY KELLY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12510 (D. Mass., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant arising from reduction of long-term disability insurance benefits based on a participant's receipt of retirement plan benefits and/or eligibility to receive retirement benefits from the UPS Defined Pension Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada operates as a life insurance company. The Company offers products such as life insurance, term insurance, and travel insurance. This lawsuit concerns Sun Life's calculation of participant benefits under its long term disability insurance form policies insured by Sun Life generally, and specifically policy number 223663-001 under which Plaintiff Kelly is insured. According to the complaint, Sun Life does not reduce the monthly policy benefits by the monthly pension benefit received by the insured participant. Instead, Sun Life reduces the participant's monthly benefit by the maximum monthly pension benefit -- the single life annuity -- the insured participant was eligible to receive had they not been married. Sun Life's actions have negatively impacted not just Plaintiff Kelly and the other married participants receiving benefits under policy number 223663-001, but also all other married participants who received benefits under long-term disability insurance policies drafted, issued, administered, and insured by Sun Life, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paula S. Bliss, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 210 Washington Street North Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 Facsimile: (385) 278-0287 E-mail: paula@justicelc.com - and - Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq. Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq. GRABHORN LAW | INSURED RIGHTS 2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107 Louisville, KY 40223 Telephone: (502) 244-9331 Facsimile: (502) 244-9334 E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com SUPERFOODS INC: Sued for Unlawful Automatic Subscription Renewal ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIA NAVARRETE, Plaintiff v. SUPERFOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.LETSLIVEITUP.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV17945 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant over automatic subscription renewal and related claims. The complaint relates that the Defendant offers through the website www.letsliveitup.com various subscriptions for products to consumers. But Defendant's offerings constitute an "automatic renewal" because such offerings comprise of plans, arrangements, or provisions of a contract that contains a free-to-pay conversion or in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term for the purposes of California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"). In addition, under the ARL, Defendant owed Plaintiff a statutory duty to provide an acknowledgment that includes automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer under California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant asserting claims for: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Plaintiff VALERIA NAVARRETE purchased "Vital Minerals: Electrolyte Powder for Daily Hydration" from Defendant via the Website on November 17, 2025. Defendant SUPERFOODS, INC. operates the Website, which markets and sells health and wellness supplements.[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 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Extension of Class Cert Hearing Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation re hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: -- The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued from June 18, 2026 to Aug. 27, 2026. The Defendant's counsel is unavailable on June 18, 2026 due to being out of the country on a pre-planned pre-paid vacation. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs advised the Defendant that the Court's civil calendar reflects July 2, 2026 as unavailable and that the Plaintiffs' counsel is unavailable on July 9, 2026, and proposed July 16, 2026; the Defendant responded and advised that the Defendant's counsel is unavailable on July 16, 2026 and proposed August 13, 2026. On June 3, 2026, the Defendant advised that the Defendant's counsel is unavailable on Aug. 20, 2026 and proposed Aug. 27, 2026. On May 27, 2026, the Court reset the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification from June 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to June 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Swift offers logistics, convention facilities, heavy hauling, trans loading, and trucking services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tdt3w1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli III, Esq. Frank J. White Jr., Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com fwhite@schneiderwallace.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. Alexis Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TAX GROUP: Class Certification Discovery Due Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAX GROUP, INC., and H&R BLOCK SERVICES, Case No. 2:26-cv-00064 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The amendment of any pleading and the joinder of any party shall be completed no later than Aug. 20, 2026. -- Discovery relating to class certification shall be completed by Sept. 30, 2026. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 30, 2026. -- The parties shall complete all discovery requests by Jan. 8, 2027. -- All motions in limine shall be filed and served by May 14, 2027, with responses due by May 21, 2027. -- Trial of this action shall be held on July 19, 2027, at 9:00 a.m., before the undersigned. Tax Group is a tax firm specializing in return preparation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FdLMQi at no extra charge.[CC] TENNESSEE: Sec. 1 of H.B. 1704 Violates Supremacy Clause, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUCY, BENJAMIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, in his official capacity as the Tennessee Attorney General, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiffs bring this suit to challenge Section 1 of House Bill 1704 (114th General Assembly) ("H.B. 1704"), which purports to give Tennessee state officials the unprecedented power to regulate the removal of noncitizens. According to the complaint, Section 1 violates the Supremacy Clause because it attempts to regulate matters that are exclusively reserved to the federal government and because it operates in a field over which Congress has exercised exclusive authority. Section 1 further violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with federal laws, imposes burdens and penalties not authorized by and contrary to federal law, contradicts federal decisions on whether and when to execute removal orders, overrides federal immigration relief that applies to noncitizens with removal orders, and authorizes state officers to take unilateral immigration enforcement actions, suit says. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE P.O. Box 120160 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7260 Email: lucas@aclu-tn.org zscout@aclu-tn.org - and - Peter McGraw, Esq. Efren Olivares, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 Email: mcgraw@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org - and - Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Immigrants' Rights Project 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 Email: hsteinberg@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org - and - Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Immigrants' Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 Email: nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Shah Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJENDRA 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-01821-E (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) is an action against the Defendants as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Defendant, which Defendant identified on April 27, 2026 (the "Data Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences, says the suit. Texas Capital is a full-service financial services firm that delivers customized solutions to businesses, entrepreneurs and individual customers. With the ability to service clients through their entire life cycles, the firm has established commercial banking, consumer banking, investment banking and wealth management capabilities. [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 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Parker Says --------------------------------------------------------- DEREK PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC. d/b/a TEXAS CAPITAL BANK and BASK BANK, Case No. 3:26-cv-01841-E (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information who were impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On April 27, 2026, the Defendants identified a security incident involving customer information on their network.2 6. Upon information and belief, unauthorized individuals gained access to sensitive information maintained by Defendants. Defendants subsequently reviewed the information involved in the incident to determine the scope of the Data Breach. The Defendants acknowledged that the Data Breach involved the sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendant Texas Capital is a financial institution that provides commercial banking and lending services to individuals and businesses. Defendant Bask Bank is an online-only division of Defendant Texas Capital. Defendants are headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa M. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com TEXAS CAPITAL: Wilk Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN WILK, 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-01826-N (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on April 27, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., doing business as Texas Capital Bank and Bask Bank, Defendant is a financial institution based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com THC ORANGE COUNTY: Must Oppose Rehan Class Cert Bid by June 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA REHAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THC – ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03128-LL-GC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cabrera entered an order setting briefing schedule on motion to compel and modify deadlines as follows: 1. On or before June 19, 2026, the Defendant shall file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion. 2. On or before June 26, 2026, the Plaintiff may file any reply to the opposition. 3. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter will be resolved without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 4. If any filing exceeds 40 pages, a courtesy copy shall be provided in compliance with section IV.J. of Judge Cabrera's Civil Chambers Rules. 5. Each document filed must include the following: a. A specific reference to each discovery request and response at issue. b. A statement as to why the discovery is needed, including the legal authority to support the position. c. Attached exhibits of the relevant requests and responses at issue (including any material definitions and general objections). On June 1, 2026, following a Discovery Conference, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a motion to compel related to the parties' discovery dispute. On June 4, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to discovery requests and to modify class discovery and class certification deadlines. THC – Orange provides specialized care for critically ill patients. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TyEH4j at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Kang Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL KANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01692 (D. Nev., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between February 18, 2026 and February 24, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransGlobal Insurance Agency, Inc. is an insurance provider, with a principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Kind, Esq. KIND LAW 5071 N. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 110 Las Vegas, NV 89130 - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com TRI-TECH LABORATORIES: Swick Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SWICK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-TECH LABORATORIES, LLC d/b/a KDC/ONE, c/o Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-670 (S.D. Ohio, June 4, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees worked over 40 hours in one or more workweek(s) or were scheduled to work more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant applied a daily meal break deduction, even when Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were unable to take a fully uninterrupted meal break. As a result, Defendant failed to compensate its production/manufacturing employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and the Potential FLSA Collective Members have suffered and continue to suffer damages, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and all other remedies available on behalf of himself and the Potential FLSA Collective Members. Plaintiff Anthony Swick was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employee from approximately August 2021 through December 2025 in New Albany, Ohio. Specifically, he was employed by Defendant as a Forklift Operator from 2021 to 2024 and then as a Coordinator, which was another production/manufacturing position with Defendant. Defendant Tri-Tech Laboratories, LLC d/b/a KDC/One designs and manufactures beauty, personal care, and home care products.1 Defendant operates approximately 16 locations throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com TUTERA SENIOR: Nash Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nursing Assistants ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALETA NASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTERA SENIOR LIVING AND HEALTH CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00484-DGK (W.D. Mo., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law. Plaintiff Nash was employed by the Defendant as a certified nursing assistant from approximately June 2020 to July 2025. Tutera Senior Living and Health Care, LLC is a senior care provider, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W. 120th Street Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913)-696-0925 Email: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 5874 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com TWIN ANGELS: Underpays Home Care Aides, McGill Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- MISTY MCGILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWIN ANGELS HOME CARE, LLC and EMMANUEL ASONGANYI, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00686-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide wage notice in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a home care aide since approximately April 2024. Twin Angels Home Care, LLC is a home care services provider based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Lubow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM LUBOW 700 W. St. Clair Ave., #320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 250-1321 Email: adamlubow@gmail.com UBIQUITI INC: Faces Higgins Class Suit Over Tariff Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UBIQUITI INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00659-UNA (D. Del., June 4, 2026) is an action for damages and/or other available legal or equitable remedies for Unjust Enrichment, Money Had and Received, violations of the New York General Business Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act related to tariff surcharges imposed and collected by Defendant from Plaintiff and other similarly situated purchasers for tariffs that have been declared unlawful and for tariff surcharges that exceed the amount of lawfully owed tariffs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased Ubiquiti products through Defendant's online storefront at ui.com and was charged over $100 in tariff surcharges for tariffs that have been deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court and/or which exceed the lawful amount of tariffs imposed on the products he purchased. Ubiquiti designs, manufactures, and sells wireless data communication and wired products for enterprises and homes. One of its best-known product lines is UniFi which is focused on home, prosumer, and business networking equipment, cameras, physical access control systems, and VoIP phones. Ubiquiti product lines also include AmpliFi, EdgeMax, UISP, airMAX, airFiber, GigaBeam, and UFiber. Ubiquiti sells its products throughout the United States through its online retail storefront at ui.com and a network of dealers. Ubiquiti manufactures its hardware primarily through third-party contract manufacturers primarily in Vietnam and China. Ubiquiti reported nearly $2.574 billion in revenue for 2025, and its trailing twelve months revenue is $3.10 billion, representing a 33.34% year-over-year increase. Plaintiff James Higgins is a citizen and resident of the State of Michigan, residing in Wolverine Lake, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Kriner, Esq. Scott M. Tucker, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 656-2500 Facsimile: (302) 656-9053 E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com smt@chimicles.com - and - Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. Dylan D. Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com UNIFIRST CORP: Rodgers Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL J. RODGERS, DOMINIQUE LEUZZI-MEEK and JAMES A. PERRY, JR., individually, and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of UniFirst Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNIFIRST CORPORATION, and UNIFIRST CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-12497 (D. Mass., June 2, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of UniFirst Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. As fiduciaries, the UniFirst Defendants have an obligation to prudently curate a menu of investment options for the UniFirst Plan. They must regularly monitor those investment options and remove ones that become imprudent. The Plan's participants, who are current and former UniFirst employees, can invest their retirement savings in any of the funds that the UniFirst Defendants select for the UniFirst Plan. On or before 2009, the Plan Advisory Team selected the T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (the "TRP Growth Fund"), as an investment option for the UniFirst Plan. The Committee has retained the TRP Growth Fund, whether organized as a mutual fund or collective investment trust, since at least 2009. As fiduciaries of the Plan, the Defendants are duty-bound to monitor the Plan's investments, and protect participants from imprudent investment options by removing them from the Plan's lineup within a reasonable time. Yet Defendants repeatedly refused to remove the TRP Growth Fund despite many years of poor performance. A prudent fiduciary would have removed the Fund well before, but not later than the start of the Class Period, and certainly during the ensuing years of poor performance throughout the Class Period. The Defendants' conduct has been imprudent, say the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs suffered concrete injuries to their Plan accounts because they invested in the TRP Growth Fund during the Class Period. Those injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants retaining the TRP Growth Fund as an investment option, and these injuries diminished the savings in Plaintiffs' retirement accounts, adds the complaint. UniFirst Corporation is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts. UniFirst is one of North America's largest providers of workplace uniforms, workwear rental programs, facility services, and related safety products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com UNION PACIFIC: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claim Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK et al., v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order: -- denying Union Pacific's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim; and -– granting in part and denying in part Union Pacific's motion to exclude the Plaintiff's experts. None of Union Pacific's arguments for excluding Mr. Hatton are persuasive, and the Court declines to exclude Mr. Hatton's testimony from its consideration of whether a class should be certified. Because Union Pacific's motion to exclude Dr. Zabel's testimony is tied to the issue of class certification, and the parties agree that Dr. Zabel is not relevant for that purpose, the Court will not consider his opinion for class certification purposes. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging that Union Pacific contaminated her property, exposing her and others similarly situated to toxic chemicals. The Plaintiff contends that the trichloroethylene ("TCE") contamination in the groundwater and soil beneath the Plaintiff's proposed class area ("PCA") homes will volatize into vapor and enter the indoor air of the PCA homes via a process called vapor intrusion. Union Pacific owns and operates an industrial railroad site near 29th North and Grove Streets in Wichita, Kansas The Defendant is an American Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IfbaL at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Logan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LOGAN, SR. is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled James Logan, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00238, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case arises from a dispute over retirement benefits and taxes. The Plaintiff is a retired railroad worker who collects retirement benefits from the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has failed to accurately inform him of his taxable retirement income, causing him to overpay taxes on those benefits. On May 30, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which Judge Reed O'Connor granted on Mar. 30, 2026. The Court finds that the Defendant has not waived sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Logan v. RRRB, Case No. 26-10521, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES LOGAN, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Charles S. Siegel, Esq. WATERS & KRAUS, LLP 3141 Hood Street Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD is represented by: Tami C. Parker, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 801 Cherry Street, Burnett Plaza Fort Worth, TX 76102 UNITED STATES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Inoa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN D. RODRIGUEZ-INOA, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:26-cv-04366-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5ATuQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Subpoenas Overreach of Governmental Power, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARTER COE, by and through his parent and next friend, CAROLINE COE; REED ROE, by and through his parent and next friend, RILEY ROE; NICOLE NOE, by and through her parent, NORMAN NOE; KARL KOE; and JAY DOE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated v. TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; NYU LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM; NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS; and NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, A DIVISION OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:26-cv-04641-JAV (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026) contends that a Subpoenas issued by DOJ represent a gross overreach of governmental power, founded on an improper purpose to "end" gender-affirming medical care and cast transgender persons into the shadows. On May 7, 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals was one of several institutions to receive a federal grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas. The Subpoenas are part and parcel of the efforts by the current federal administration to "end" gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, which is part of a larger set of attacks on transgender people across the country. The Plaintiffs -- and the similarly situated members of the proposed class -- are minors, their parents, and young adults unwittingly caught in the crosshairs of that attack simply because they received medically necessary gender-affirming medical care here in New York City, near their homes in the New York City area, and with the expectation that their private medical records would remain private. Of particular concern to Plaintiffs, the Subpoenas seek the identifying and detailed sensitive health information of all transgender persons who received medical care as treatment for their gender dysphoria while they were minors, as well as the identity of their parents. Through the Subpoenas, DOJ seeks to gravely and unjustifiably invade the privacy of Plaintiffs in violation of their rights under Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. For NYU, compliance with the Subpoenas would also violate well-established state law prohibiting a breach of the statutory physician-patient privilege. The Subpoenas at issue here were not issued for a proper purpose or on a clean slate but as part of the Administration's systematic campaign to exclude transgender people from public life and to "end" the gender-affirming medical care that enables many transgender people to live authentically as themselves. The U.S. DOJ previously issued civil administrative subpoenas to healthcare institutions across the country that have lawfully provided this care demanding the identities and sensitive health information of every transgender patient who received gender-affirming medical care as a minor. Federal district courts across the country limited DOJ's ability to obtain such information, quashing or limiting multiple of the civil subpoenas, finding that the civil subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose or violated the rights of the patients whose information they sought. Faced with this wall of resistance to its discriminatory and improper aims, DOJ has now shifted tactics, purportedly moving the locus of its "investigation" to the Northern District of Texas and relying on grand jury subpoenas to obtain the same information it was prohibited from obtaining through other means by multiple courts, says the suit. DOJ's aims are not to impartially enforce the law -- no federal law prohibits the provision of gender-affirming medical care to minors, which the U.S. Supreme Court has determined is for the states to regulate -- but rather to effectuate the Administration's policy priorities to "end" the gender-affirming medical care, even if coercion is necessary. Todd Blanche is the Acting Attorney General of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. Attorney General Blanche is responsible for all aspects of the operation and management of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including implementing and fulfilling DOJ's duties under the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. DOJ has several divisions, including the Civil and Criminal Divisions. DOJ also directs and oversees United States Attorneys' Offices, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 aweinstock@nyclu.org - and - Chase B. Strangio, Esq. Shana Knizhnik, 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 - and - Elizabeth Gill, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0779 E-mail: egill@aclu.org - and - Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Esq. Karen L. Loewy, 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 loewy@lambdalegal.org - and - Nora Huppert, Esq. A.D. Sean Lewis, Esq. LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 3656 N. Halsted Street Chicago, IL 60613 Telephone: (312) 605-3233 Facsimile: (855) 535-2236 E-mail; nhuppert@lambdalegal.org alewis@lambdalegal.org UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Soto Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL STANDARD INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04731 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") arising from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.universalstandard.com in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The complaint relates that on March 3, 2026, March 4, 2026, April 14, 2026, and May 9, 2026, Plaintiff attempted on four separate occasions to access Defendant's retail e-commerce website using the NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access) screen reader on his home computer in New York County. He attempted to access Defendant's Website for the specific purpose of purchasing clothing for his partner. Despite multiple attempts across these four dates, Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to pervasive access barriers. The Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the products, services and facilities of the Website, asserts the complaint. As such, Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class and subclass based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.universalstandard.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff Francisco Soto is a resident of New York County, New York. Mr. Soto is legally blind, proficient user of screen‑reader technology, including NVDA, and relies on keyboard navigation and accessible coding to browse, understand, and interact with websites. Defendant Universal Standard Inc. owns, operates, and controls the commercial retail ecommerce Website www.universalstandard.com through which it markets, displays, and sells women's clothing—including dresses, jumpsuits, tops, bottoms, denim, workwear, athleisure, loungewear, and related fashion items—to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS: Franklin Sues Over Breach of Clients' Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVINA FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01838-N (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between August 11, 2025, and August 20, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. University of Dallas is a private, educational institution in Irving, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: JNelson@milberg.com VERIFIED CREDENTIALS: Watson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------- LEON WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIFIED CREDENTIALS LLC d/b/a ONE SOURCE; THE BACKGROUND CHECK COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02851 (D. Minn., June 4, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Jeffrey M Bryan, and referred to Magistrate David T Schultz. Verified Credentials, LLC provides background screening services and human resource technology solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 331 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (929) 263-4066 Email: bwilliams@sirillp.com VIENNA BEEF: Underpays Quality Assurance Technicians, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIENNA BEEF LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06590 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Quality Assurance Technician in Illinois from approximately April 2022 through approximately April 2026. Vienna Beef Ltd. is a food manufacturing company based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com WASHINGTON POTATO: Faces Lohuis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT LOHUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON POTATO COMPANY and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-05085 (E.D. Wash., June 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a forklift driver, forklift instructor, safety auditor, and/or similar job titles/positions from approximately September, 2023 through October 9, 2025. Washington Potato Company is a commercial potato and vegetable processing company based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com WEEM LLC: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEEM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04666 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://weemco.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Weem LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WORKWISE SOLUTIONS: Intercepts User Data Without Consent, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORKWISE SOLUTIONS INC., d/b/a BANDANA JOBS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05959 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the New York General Business Law, intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of secretly intercepting and transmitting the private communications, job-search activity, and personal data of the users of its website, www.bandana.com, and mobile applications to third parties without the knowledge or consent of its users. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Private Policy did not disclose that it transmits users' sensitive information to third parties for advertising, analytics, and/or profiling purposes. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful action, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Workwise Solutions Inc., doing business as Bandana Jobs, is a company that operates an online and mobile job-search marketplace headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 Email: victor@almeidalawgroup.com luke@almeidalawgroup.com X CORP: Class Cert Hearing in Ye Suit Set for June 29, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA YE, JAMES BRIAN KURTZ, and TUSHAR BHUSHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. X CORP., f/k/a/ TWITTER, INC., X HOLDINGS CORP., X.AI HOLDINGS CORP., ELON MUSK, and DOES, Case No. 3:25-cv-09501-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an amended case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: May 01, 2028 Final pretrial conference: March 16, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 19, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: July 27, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class June 29, 2027 certification: Motion for class certification Replies (including class expert reply reports) by: May 26, 2027 Opposition (including class expert rebuttal reports) by: May 12, 2027 Last day to file by: March 31, 2027 The Court further entered an order that parties and counsel refer to and comply with Judge Thompson's Civil Standing Order and Civil Pretrial and Jury Trial Standing Order or Civil Pretrial and Bench Trial Standing Order located on the court's website (https://cand.uscourts.gov/trina-lthompson/). The parties are further ordered to provide the Court with a list of all related cases in Federal and/or State Court at the next case management conference. X Corp is a social networking platform for people to create and share ideas. A copy of the Court's order dated June 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NCYw4v at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***