260619.mbx

260619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 19, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 122 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Faces PFAS Class Action in Victoria Supreme Court 3M COMPANY: Maybrook Fire Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. A. RUDIN INC: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. A.Y. MCDONALD: Court Narrows Claims in Stokes Suit ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Birmingham ACCESS DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info , Ramos Says ADMA BIOLOGICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 ADMA BIOLOGICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: Court Rejects Sanctions Against Judge AEROTECH INC: Schultz Loses Bid to File SAC ALASKA AIR GROUP: Chaney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ALASKA AIR GROUP: Johnson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Seeks to Stay Discovery AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Overtime Pay Class Action Suit AMERICAN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM AMERICAN VISION WINDOWS: Loza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMS ELECTRIC: Pridemore Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ANNE-MARIE JOLLY: Bronx Seeks to Certify Class of Respondents ANTHROPIC PBC: Kahn Sues Over Deceptive Max Subscription Plans ARCADIA CONSUMER: Fungi-Nail Cannot Treat Nail Fungus, Suit Claims ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES: Faces Suit Over Stone Slabs' Health Issues ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: McZeal Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ASSETMARK INC: ClassAction.org Investigates June 2026 Data Breach AT&T MOBILITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gray Suit Due Feb. 5, 2027 AUTHENTEAK LLC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes AUTOCRUITMENT LLC: Clark Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California BADGER METER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 3 BANANA BLOSSOM: Pulliam Seeks Collective Action Certification BBBB BONDING: Seeks Relief from Failure to File Opposition BLACK EMBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Alvarez Suit Says BLUE & GOLD FLEET: Peeples Suit Removed to N.D. California BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 28 BOMBAS LLC: Faces Cheng Class Suit Over Deceptive Emails BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BREWERY OMMEGANG: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says BURLINGTON COAT: Ortiz Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. BYRON CITY, GA: Faces Carlan Suit Over Infrastructure Failures CAR-MART INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims CCS INTERVENTION: Nashville Court Maps Out TCPA Class Action CHATTEM INC: Amaral Files Suit Over Mislabeled Sleep Aid Products CHOPCHEESE DELI: Cisnmeros Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA CHRISTOPHER BECKER: Zappia Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CLOUDFARE INC: Taylor Suit Challenges Recapitalization Transaction COCA-COLA CO: Barnes Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Opposition in Barnes Due July 22 COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Faces Tan Suit Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariff CORRAL BOOT: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes COSTAR REALTY: Faces Class Suit Over Apartments.com Hidden Fees CRACKER BARREL: Liptak FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts DENTAQUEST GROUP: King Files Suit in D. Massachusetts DIADORA US: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Thomas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOXIM INC: Agrees to Settle 2026 Data Breach Suit for $5.5MM DRE VISION: Scott Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA DUPONT SPECIALTY: Class Cert Filing in Bower Extended to July 15 EDGIO INCORPORATED: Class Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval EMBURSE INC: Heiting Sues Over Unlawful Use of Data Broker Software EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Majernik Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Costs ERASCA INC: Faces Cheng Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ERASCA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ERMI LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cantu Says ERMI LLC: Fails to secure Sensitive Info, Garr Class Suit Alleges FAST CARE: Elsafty Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Ram ProMaster Vans' False Ads FINAL TOUCH: Del Prado Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA FLEX-N-GATE CORP: Agrees to $3MM Employee Overtime Class Settlement FOOD AND COMPANY: Barca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cason Says GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Rear Sliding Window Defect GENERAL SERVICES: Renshaw Sues Over First Amendment Violation GO GET ORGANIZED: Earle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GREGG DRILLING: Muro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GROCERY DELIVERY: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California HELEN OF TROY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit HOMES.COM LLC: Eggers Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-Recorded Calls HOST HEALTHCARE: Singh Suit Removed to S.D. California HV GLOBAL GROUP: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Valdez Suit Removed to C.D. California INSTITUTE ON AGING: Lopez Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Data Breach INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says INTERVET INC: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Opposition OK'd ITRON INC: Akre Suit Removed to E.D. Washington JACKSON'S FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Intercepts Web Users Communications, Coyne Says JOHN KRUMME: Minshew Bid to Amend Phase 1 Scheduling Order Tossed JOHNNY WAS: Faces Gonzales Suit Over Deceptive Regular Prices KAISER FOUNDATION: Ingram Sues Over Invasion of Privacy KALSHI INC: Discloses Website Users' Info to Google, James Says KALSHIEX LLC: Risch Suit Transferred to S.D. New York KARL AUTO GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach KENNEDY MART: Gonzalez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA KNAPHEIDE MANUFACTURING: Conditional Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2027 KNOWBE4 INC: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Tossed KYB AMERICAS: Agrees to 2025 Data Breach Class Action Settlement LASERSHIP INC: Conditional Cert. Bid in Taboada Suit Due July 31 LASERSHIP INC: Court Stays All Deadlines for Parties to Mediate LINCOLN PROPERTY: Gomez Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code LOVESAC CO: Seeks Dismissal of Nguyen SAC LUXI GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jenkins Alleges MAELYS COSMETICS USA: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California MAMMA MIA: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MCBS LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Neff Suit Due May 6, 2027 MDL 3047: Panel Vacates Conditional Transfer Order No. 73 MDS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Bartz Suit Over Wage & Hours Violations MINDLANCE INC: Cheatum Suit Removed to C.D. California MONROE CAPITAL: Arbitration Granted for Maryland Plaintiffs MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Sues Over Negligence of Roundup Herbicide NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Student Athlete Compensation NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Bailey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages NAVAN INC: Securities Class Action Filed over SEC Disclosures NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Unconstitutional Search Procedures NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge NOMAD TRANSIT: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Faison Says NORTH BAKERSFIELD IMPORTS: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees OREGON: Faces Class Suit to End Solitary Confinement in Prisons OSTERIA LAGUNA: Canalizo Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA OVINTIV INC: Underpays Gas, Oil Royalties, Monarch Suit Says PERPETUA RESOURCES: Barnes Class Action Dismissed PICS NV: Faces Firstfire Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop PINCHME.COM INC: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE: Powell Files Suit in S.D. California PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mistler Suit Removed to E.D. California PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: McClain Sues Over Automobile Insurance Claims RCFHP INC: Morocho Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL REPUBLIC REIGN: Alberti Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 7 ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Nohle's Reply Remains Due by June 19 SACTO LOGISTICS INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAFEWAY INC: Wilson Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint SAINT JOSEPH: Nurses Sue Over Hospital's Low Staffing Levels SCPS LLC: Steward Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama SCPS LLC: White Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama SEACAP SOLUTIONS: Zappia Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages SEATOWN ELECTRIC: Higginbotham Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Brunson Seeks to Recover Electricians' Wages SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Gets Initial Nod SELLECK CHEMICALS: Beckles Suit Removed to N.D. California SHELL CHEMICAL: Class Certification in Flynn Due Feb. 19, 2027 SNAP FINANCE: Faces Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Communications SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff Refunds SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Faces Montoya Suit Over Tariff Surcharges SPLITERO FUNDING: Faces McNulty Class Suit in S.D. Calif. SPROUTS FARMERS: Washington Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STARFIGHTERS SPACE: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages STATION CASINOS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hall Suit Says STITCH FIX: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Derivative Suit STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Serrato Class Suit Over Data Breach STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Vaquera Says SUMMIT NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Purnell Gets Final Nod TEKSYSTEMS INC: Masood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TERIYAKI BOY: Garcia Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA TESLA INC: Waller Files Suit in N.D. California TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Answer 22 RFAs on Vagueness Grounds TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hasrallah Suit Says TRUGREEN LIMITED: Delvalle Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn. U-RELAX MOVING CO: Chung Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania UNITED MOMMAS: Faces Chaplin Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages UNITED STATES: Z.A. Seeks to Provisionally Certify Class & Subclass UNIVERSAL DEDICATED: Colemnan Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Justin Schwartz Removed from Class Action VALIDUS ENERGY: Faces Waypoint Suit Over Underpayment of Royalties VIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Garlesky Suit Over Shares' Price Drop VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Colon Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J. WALGREEN CO: Bid for Class Certification in Polk Due Aug. 13 WASHINGTON POST: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Surveillance Pricing WP & M: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, MWHL X.AI CORP: Faces Haley Class Action Suit Over Gas Turbines' Noise ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ZOETIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Wins Bellwether Judgment in Asbestos-Talc Case ********* 3M COMPANY: Faces PFAS Class Action in Victoria Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Elise Kinsella, writing for CBC News, reports that hundreds of businesses and organisations are part of a major Victorian Supreme Court class action against chemical manufacturer 3M over PFAS. The ABC understands the total value of the compensation being sought could run into the billions of dollars. The company has vowed to defend itself in the face of the court action. A giant PFAS class action has been launched against chemical manufacturer 3M in Victoria's Supreme Court, which the ABC understands includes hundreds of businesses and organisations and could result in compensation claims reaching into billions of dollars. The class action was first filed in the Victorian Supreme Court in late 2024, but documents outlining the case have only recently been released to the ABC. In those documents, lawyers for the plaintiffs say they believe this to be the first Australian class action to be filed against 3M over products containing PFAS. The class action is so large, the ABC understands the total value of the compensation being sought could end up even higher than the $2-billion claim recently made by the federal government, in its separate litigation against 3M over PFAS contamination on Defence Force bases. 3M has said it will defend itself against both the federal government and the class action claims. PFAS chemicals have been widely used around the globe in products such as firefighting foam, cookware, cleaning products, water resistant fabrics, carpets and make-up to help make products become resistant to heat, grease and water. The US EPA explains that many of these so-called forever chemicals "break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals and the environment over time". 3M and other manufacturers of PFAS products have been facing waves of PFAS litigation across the globe, with thousands of cases before US courts. Some of those civil cases have been settled for eye-watering sums, including a $US10 billion ($14.29 billion) settlement by 3M to US public water systems in 2023 which 3M said "was not an admission of liability". The issue has become so big a Hollywood film was made about the issue -- Dark Waters stars Mark Ruffalo and tells the story of lawyer, Rob Bilott, who pursued legal claims against chemical manufacturer DuPont over PFAS contamination. What we know about the Victorian class action The Victorian Supreme Court recently released to the ABC several documents filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, as part of the Victorian PFAS class action. The documents reveal that the group suing 3M includes businesses and organisations which own or have owned Australian sites where 3M PFAS products were used, businesses or organisations which own sites that PFAS has migrated onto, and businesses or organisations affected by PFAS impacting water supplies or wastewater systems. The court documents outline the key allegations against 3M. Documents filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, list five companies which were part of Qenos Group as the lead plaintiffs. Qenos was a large plastics and chemical manufacturer with plants at Altona in Melbourne and Botany in Sydney until it was placed into administration in 2024. An affidavit from Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner Michael Catchpoole states that PFAS-based firefighting foam was used at the Qenos Altona site from around 1980. Mr Catchpoole said company records show Qenos purchased 3M's Light Water firefighting foam between 1998 and 2014. He said he believed 3M's firefighting foam which contained PFAS was used on the Altona site "during firefighting training, equipment testing and in responding to fire, chemical spill and other incidents". Mr Catchpoole said in December 2016 the EPA served Qenos with a clean up notice relating to actual or likely PFAS contamination at its Altona site. In a statement of claim, the plaintiffs outline the major allegations against 3M in the case. The plaintiffs state that from no later than 1980 3M "knew or ought to have known, that there were potential environmental and human health risks associated with the use of 3M PFAS products". They further allege, from that same date, 3M knew or ought to have known that PFAS accumulates in animals and humans, is highly mobile in soil, persists in the environment for extended periods, persists in the human body and that gives "rise to long-term health risks". The documents also include allegations from the plaintiffs that 3M "have concealed and continue to conceal that 3M PFAS products, including Light Water AFFF, pose a material risk to the environment and/or human health". The plaintiffs allege 3M has been "recklessly indifferent to the truth of the safety representations" it has made. In their case, the plaintiffs are asking the court to order 3M to remediate PFAS contaminated sites owned by the organisations bringing the claim or pay compensation for plaintiffs to do this work. The plaintiffs are also seeking damages to be paid "for misleading and deceptive conduct" by 3M. The ABC sent a list of questions to 3M. In a statement it said it would defend itself against the claims. "3M announced in 2000 a voluntary global phase-out of the manufacturing of two PFAS compounds, PFOS and PFOA," it said. "In 2022, the company announced it would discontinue the manufacture of all PFAS by the end of 2025 — a goal we accomplished." The company also said it had "never manufactured PFAS in Australia and ceased sales of the products at issue in Australia around two decades ago." Legal expert says PFAS claims exploding abroad, with Australian cases likely to grow Commercial litigation specialist McKenzie Moore is a deputy managing partner in Sydney with law firm Piper Alderman and has been watching PFAS litigation grow globally. She said litigation really began in the US after a major civil claim was brought against manufacturer DuPont but it took another decade for litigation to take off in Australia. "We had our first claim in relation to PFAS . . . that focused on Australian Defence Force bases so the class action was actually launched against the Commonwealth," she said. In the last two to three years, Ms Moore said, there had been the start of a "second wave of litigation" which she said was "really aimed at holding the manufacturers accountable". Ms Moore said these cases are just emerging in Australia but had "exploded" abroad. "We're seeing over 7,000 cases in the United States in relation to personal injury claims against DuPont and 3M," she said. "We've seen some really interesting movement in Europe, including in Sweden, which has found that residents who have higher levels of PFAS in their blood will have sustained an injury, a personal injury." Ms Moore said Australia hadn't seen a finding like that, but she predicted personal injury claims would make up the next wave of PFAS related litigation in Australia. Globally, the health impacts of PFAS are still being studied. The Australian Centre for Disease Control advises the public that there is "limited evidence of human disease or other clinically significant harm resulting from PFAS exposure". It advises that some studies have found associations between exposure to some types of PFAS chemicals and health issues such as reduced kidney function, lower birth weight in babies and an increased risk of some cancers. It explains that an association to health outcome does not confirm a direct cause. In the United States the Environment Protection Authority advises that scientific studies have shown exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects or delays on children and low birth weights among other issues. It states that its researchers are still working to understand how harmful PFAS are to people and the environment. Ms Moore said she expected groups with the highest levels of exposure like firefighters and some industrial workers to bring the first personal injury claims in Australia. She said those lawsuits will likely involve claims for much larger amounts of money than the cases Australia has seen so far which have been based on clean-up costs and environmental damage. [GN] 3M COMPANY: Maybrook Fire Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company, et al. The case is styled as Maybrook Fire District, NY on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. 3M Company f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Dupont De Nemours, Inc.; EIDP, Inc. f/k/a E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company; The Chemours Company; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Corteva, Inc.; Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC; W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.; Lion Group, Inc.; MSA Safety Inc.; Innotex, Corp.; Morris-Croker LLC d/b/a Fire-End & Croker Corporation, Case No. EF005888-2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty., June 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Product Liability (Strict Products Liability)." 3M Company -- https://www.3m.com/ -- is a global science and technology multinational conglomerate headquartered in Maplewood, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com A. RUDIN INC: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Rudin, Inc. The case is styled as Guillermo Gutierrez Corona, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A. Rudin, Inc., Case No. 26STCV17699 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." A. Rudin -- https://www.arudin.com/ -- is a Los Angeles based family-owned business fabricating custom furniture of exceptional quality and comfort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com A.Y. MCDONALD: Court Narrows Claims in Stokes Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK STOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. A.Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01002-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant. -- It is granted as to the plaintiff Patrick Stokes' negligence claim (Count I), which is dismissed. -- It is denied as to Stokes' claims for breach of implied contract (Count II) and unjust enrichment (Count III). -- Those two claims will proceed. Although the complaint frequently accuses AYM of general misfeasance in protecting its employees' PII, its allegations go beyond the generic accusations like those in Kuhns. In addition, Stokes contends that AYM should have deleted its former employees' PII after the information was no longer needed. These allegations are sufficient at this stage to support Stokes' assertion that AYM breached the alleged, implied contract. AYM's motion to dismiss Count II will be denied. AYM further argues that because Stokes was fairly compensated for his labor through his wages, allowing an unjust enrichment claim to proceed under Stokes' theory would effectively restructure the parties’ employment agreement. This argument has merit and may ultimately prevail. At this stage, however, Stokes' allegations are sufficient to plausibly contend that it would be unjust to allow AYM to retain funds that it arguably should have applied to data security. AYM's motion to dismiss Count III will be denied. Stokes filed his class action complaint in the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County on Nov. 10, 2025. He alleges that his personally identifiable information (PII) was exposed after AYM suffered a data breach on Jan. 12, 2025 The Defendant is an Iowa-based and multi-state operated manufacturing company that specializes in water works products, plumbing supplies, pump systems and natural gas solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2jybnU at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Birmingham ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; STEPHEN R. DAVIS; and SRDJAN (SERGE) R. STANKOVIC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hayes entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony; -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony; and -- denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court sets the following deadlines: (1) Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) by July 10, 2026; (2) Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.4 by July 17, 2026; (3) The Plaintiff's counsel shall provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order by July 24, 2026; (4) The parties shall lodge the proposed pretrial order with the Court, including any objections to the other party's respective pretrial disclosures, by Aug. 5, 2026; and (5) The final pretrial conference is scheduled on Aug. 12, 2026 at 10:30 AM. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to falsity. The Plaintiffs bring this federal securities class action seeking recovery under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons and entities that acquired Acadia common stock between Sept. 9, 2019, and April 4, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misled investors while pursuing FDA approval of a drug application and, following the FDA's denial of its application, Acadia's stock price dropped and caused financial losses to those investors. Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing treatment for unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders, including dementia. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ysbDeu at no extra charge.[CC] ACCESS DENTAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info , Ramos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCESS DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01963-E (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information resulting in a devastating data breach. On June 5, 2026, a post on the dark web scraping website Ransomware.Live indicated that threat actor Worldleaks had taken responsibility for the cyberattack and Data Breach. The Defendant has not yet provided individual notice of the Data Breach to all victims of the Data Breach. Thus, most, if not all Class Members do not know that their Private Information has been compromised, and that they are, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. Armed with the Private Information stolen in the Data Breach (and a significant head start), data thieves can commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class Members' names, using Class Members' names to obtain medical services, using Class Members' information to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members' information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names but with another person's photograph, and giving false information to police during an arrest, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients, employees, and customers of Defendant. The Defendant is a network of clinics and dental service organizations that provides comprehensive oral healthcare. The organization operates across multiple states, offering a wide array of services including general dentistry, orthodontics, and specialty care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Kristen Lake Carodoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ADMA BIOLOGICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against ADMA Biologics, Inc. ("ADMA") (NASDAQ: ADMA). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding ADMA's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) ADMA engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction; (2) ADMA used channel stuffing to create an appearance of revenue; and (3) ADMA lacked adequate internal controls. If you purchased ADMA shares between August 9, 2024 and March 25, 2026, and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at mdees@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/adma-biologics/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is August 10, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) mdees@holzerlaw.com [GN] ADMA BIOLOGICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired ADMA Biologics, Inc. ("ADMA" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ADMA) securities during the period of August 9, 2024 through March 25, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your ADMA investments, you have until August 10, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (1) ADMA engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction; (2) ADMA used channel stuffing to create an appearance of revenue; and (3) ADMA lacked adequate internal controls. On March 24, 2026, Culper Research published a short seller report on ADMA alleging "Channel Stuffing, an Undisclosed Related Party Distributor, and –3% Real Growth in 2025 vs. +20% Reported." Among other things, the report stated that "two high-level employees at one of ADMA's two largest distributors," had confirmed independently that "starting in 2025, ADMA induced the distributor to stock excess ASCENIV by offering rebates and extended payment terms in order to meet order expectations. Distributors take unwanted product without having to pay for it, ADMA books the revenues, and reports growth that was never there." On this news, the price of ADMA shares declined by $2.26 per share, or approximately 17%, from $13.59 per share on March 23, 2026 to close at $11.33 on March 24, 2026. The price of ADMA shares declined further by $1.70 per share, or approximately 15%, from $11.33 on March 24, 2026 to close at $9.63 on March 25, 2026. On March 26, 2026, Investing.com published an article that reported "Cantor Fitzgerald downgraded ADMA . . . following pressure on the shares from a short report alleging the company is boosting ASCENIV revenues through channel stuffing . . . Cantor Fitzgerald said it expected more specific feedback addressing the direct claims in the short report. Cantor Fitzgerald said the lack of clarity makes it difficult to recommend investors take advantage of stock weakness . . . The firm said investors are looking for a more thoughtful response from the company and want ADMA Biologics to address cash flow inconsistencies. On this news, the price of ADMA shares declined by $1.34 per share, or approximately 14%, from $9.63 per share on March 25, 2026 to close at $8.29 on March 26, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired ADMA securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: Court Rejects Sanctions Against Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in the case captioned Lori Grohol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:26-CV-01437 (M.D. Pa.), dismissed the complaint and denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motions for sanctions. Plaintiff's counsel filed a complaint that, together with its exhibits, exceeded 25,000 pages, named sixty-two defendants, and contained 3,389 numbered paragraphs. The complaint alleged harm from mass malpractice by Defendant North Penn Legal Services and retaliation by the remaining defendants. The court found the complaint to be the antithesis of the short and plain statement required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), placing an unwarranted and unreasonable burden on the court and defendants to ferret through thousands of unrelated paragraphs to identify cognizable claims. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8. Counsel had also filed six emergency motions for temporary restraining orders, which the court denied. Counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration and two motions for sanctions against the court and its staff. The court denied reconsideration, finding no operative complaint existed to support injunctive relief. The sanctions motions were also denied. The court noted that counsel's filings included threats to file 75 separate motions for injunction and 651 separate complaints should the complaint be dismissed, and contained remarks that the court's ruling proved law school provides no competence. The court found these statements immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous, warranting being stricken under Rule 12(f). Counsel was directed to refrain from making such remarks and warned that continued conduct could result in a sanctions hearing. A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated June 09, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZg2Y0 from PacerMonitor.com AEROTECH INC: Schultz Loses Bid to File SAC ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE SCHULTZ, et al., v. AEROTECH, INC. and AEROTECH, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN And TRUST COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00618-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Hardy entered a judgment denying the motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The time to seek modification of the Case Management Order for amendment of pleadings has long since passed and the Court finds no good cause for excusing non-adherence to that deadline. The Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to why they could not have taken the depositions earlier or why they could not have sought to extend the pleading amendment deadlines in the Case Management Order (as was done with other deadlines contained therein) before expiration in anticipation of such a foreseeable need. The Plaintiffs assert that their proposed Second Amended Complaint will clarify the multiple roles that Defendant Jeff Wisyanski had in the administration of the Aerotech ESOP and allow their claims to be stated in the alternative as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)1 . This matter involves a challenge to the risk-averse investment strategy used by the fiduciaries of the Aerotech, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of present and former members of the ESOP asserting a claim against Aerotech, Inc. ("Aerotech") and the Aerotech, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust Committee ("Aerotech ESOP Committee" or the "Committee") for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Aerotech is a manufacturer of custom motion systems and equipment across a broad range of applications and industries. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SKqpp0 at no extra charge.[CC] ALASKA AIR GROUP: Chaney Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carmen Chaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26-2-13848-6 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01944. This matter stems from an alleged incident where Defendant suffered a data breach, allegedly causing the information of Plaintiff, and other individuals, to be viewed by a threat actor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle Bailey, Esq. WASHING TON INJURY LAW 1905 Queen Anne Ave N. Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Email: Litigation@washingtoninjurylaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ESKM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Email: Service@eksm.com The Defendants are represented by: Timothy D. Shea, Esq. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 801 Kirkland Ave, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: 206.204.6800 Email: tshea@wshblaw.com ALASKA AIR GROUP: Johnson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Franklyn Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26-2-13850-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01950. This matter stems from an alleged incident where Defendant suffered a data breach, allegedly causing the information of Plaintiff, and other individuals, to be viewed by a threat actor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL, PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: kboyd@mcnaul.com The Defendants are represented by: Timothy D. Shea, Esq. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 801 Kirkland Ave, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: 206.204.6800 Email: tshea@wshblaw.com AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Seeks to Stay Discovery ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Middleton and George Lawrence, individually and on behalf of the Amentum 401(k) Retirement Plan and DynCorp International Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated, v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings LLC, Amentum Benefits Administration Committee, Amentum Retirement & Investment Committee, Tammy Woodman, Greg Robinson, Bob Rudisin, Debbie Bechtel, Angie Myers, Alice McAbee, Matt Stone, Jake Kennedy, Larry Goldman, Ann McRitchie, DynCorp International LLC, The Retirement and Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Barbara Walker, and John and Jane Doe Defendants 1-30, Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to grant their motion and stay discovery pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Amentum provides technical and engineering services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SiB17Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Elaine Drodge Koch, Esq. Sarah R. Holdmeyer, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 374-3235 Facsimile: (816) 374-3300 E-mail: elaine.koch@bclplaw.com sarah.holdmeyer@bclplaw.com - and - Cardelle B. Spangler, Esq. Aviva Grumet-Morris, Esq. Tiana Pequette, Esq. Heather L. Kriz, Esq. WINSTON TAYLOR LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: cardelle.spangler@winstontaylor.com aviva.grumetmorris@winstontaylor.com tiana.pequette@winstontaylor.com heather.kriz@winstontaylor.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Overtime Pay Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action brought by an American Airlines flight attendant seeking overtime pay was dismissed this week by a Pennsylvania federal judge who said the parties' collective bargaining agreement governs those claims. The June 8 decision by US District Judge Kelley B. Hodge provides helpful precedent for similar cases around the country that seek to apply state wage-and-hour laws to contracts negotiated between airlines and their unions—territory governed by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA), said O'Melveny partner Mark W. Robertson, who represents American Airlines and was lead counsel in this case. Judge Hodge held that federal law preempts claims by flight attendant Christopher John that American violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay overtime John said he had earned because such a claim cannot be resolved without interpreting the governing collective bargaining agreement. The court lacks the jurisdiction to consider the issue of overtime pay given it requires interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, the judge wrote, noting: "This is precisely the kind of interpretation that the Court is barred from undertaking under the RLA." The potential class was approximately 3,100 American Airlines flight attendants based in Pennsylvania. Robertson, global co-chair of O'Melveny's Aviation Group, said the judge made the correct call: "It is not possible to resolve these types of wage-and-hour claims for flight attendants without interpreting the detailed and complex compensation provisions in their collective bargaining agreement," he said. "And allowing such claims would undermine the very point of having a holistic negotiated collective bargaining agreement that governs all flight attendants nationwide." In addition to Robertson, the O'Melveny team included partner Ian Simmons, counsel Charles Mahoney, and associate Anna Guida. The case is John v. American Airlines Inc., 2:25-cv-06698-KBH (E.D. Pa.). O'Melveny's Aviation Group represents nearly all the US passenger and cargo airlines, airport owners and operators, investors, and developers. Our clients trust us because we offer one of the few comprehensive legal platforms in the industry, with top-notch labor, antitrust, litigation, employment, infrastructure, and equipment finance support. About O'Melveny It's more than what you do: it's how you do it. Across sectors and borders, in board rooms and courtrooms, we measure our success by yours. And in our interactions, we commit to making your O'Melveny experience as satisfying as the outcomes we help you achieve. Our greatest accomplishment is ensuring that you never have to choose between premier lawyering and exceptional service. So, tell us. What do you want to achieve? Visit us at www.omm.com; learn more in our firm at-a-glance; and find us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. Contact: Brandon Jacobsen, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP (213) 430-8024 bjacobsen@omm.com [GN] AMERICAN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Labcorp has agreed to a $35,000,000 settlement in a class action lawsuit that alleged American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), which Labcorp used to recover outstanding medical debts, failed to adequately safeguard sensitive personal information from a data breach that occurred between August 2018 and March 2019. The $35 million Labcorp class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 21, 2026. The agreement covers all individuals for whom Labcorp transmitted personal information to Retrieval-Masters Creditor’s Bureau, doing business as American Medical Collection Agency, and such information was contained in the computer systems implicated by the data breach at AMCA that occurred between approximately August 2018 and March 2019. The court-approved website for the Labcorp class action settlement can be found at AMCADataBreachSettlement83395.com. Labcorp settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred because of the data breach. This benefit covers losses stemming from identity theft or fraud and out-of-pocket costs for credit monitoring, legal services, notary, fax, postage, and more. As part of this benefit, class members may claim reimbursement for up to 10 hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead submit a claim form to receive an estimated $50 alternative cash payment, with no proof required. Per the agreement, both cash benefit options may be adjusted on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. In addition to monetary compensation, all class members can file a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Pro, which includes medical information monitoring and identity theft insurance. To submit a Labcorp settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Labcorp claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 3, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Labcorp settlement final approval following a hearing on August 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The American Medical Collection Agency class action lawsuit alleged that the medical debt collection agency, which contracted with Labcorp to pursue individuals who have outstanding medical debt, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent a data breach between approximately August 2018 and March 2019. While Labcorp has agreed to a class action settlement, litigation against AMCA and the remaining defendants, including Quest Diagnostics, Sunrise Medical Laboratories, CBL Path and others, remains ongoing. More information is available at AMCADataBreachSettlement.com. [GN] AMERICAN VISION WINDOWS: Loza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Vision Windows, Inc. The case is styled as Edy M. Loza, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Vision Windows, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE067285 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." American Vision Windows, Inc. -- https://www.americanvisionwindows.com/ -- provides construction services. The Company specializes in repair services for windows and doors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 800-754-3611 Email: ryan@protectionlawgroup.com AMS ELECTRIC: Pridemore Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN PRIDEMORE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMS ELECTRIC, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. (Filed April 28, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2022. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03263 to the proceeding. On April 28, 2026, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging the following class claims against AMS: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; (5) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (8) Violation of Business & Professions Code. AMS provides electrical solutions, including installations of new electrical panels, ceiling lighting, and EV chargers.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Hope Anne Case, Esq. Kenneth J. Zielinski, Esq. Nicholas G. Thomas, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 Telephone: (650) 320-1500 Facsimile: (650) 320-9905 E-mail: hcase@rutan.com kzielinski@rutan.com nthomas@rutan.com ANNE-MARIE JOLLY: Bronx Seeks to Certify Class of Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Bronx Defenders, et al., v. Hon. Anne-Marie Jolly, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04875-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All respondents who are the subject of pending petitions in child protective proceedings in Bronx, Brooklyn, New York, or Queens County Family Court, and who are not incarcerated," or, alternatively, a modified definition bringing this action within the scope of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs further move this Court to appoint the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 as class representatives and appoint the undersigned as class counsel. Hon. Anne-Marie Jolly serves as the Administrative Judge of the New York City Family Court. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWxdbI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trisha Trigilio, Esq. Anne Venhuizen, Esq. Jesse McGleughlin, Esq. Kyle Hogan, Esq. THE BRONX DEFENDERS 360 East 161st Street Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (347) 302-2797 E-mail: ttrigilio@bronxdefenders.org - and - Kathleen A. Reilly, Esq. Alexander Weaver, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-7450 Telephone: (212) 836 7450 E-mail: Kathleen.reilly@arnoldporter.com ANTHROPIC PBC: Kahn Sues Over Deceptive Max Subscription Plans -------------------------------------------------------------- KARL KAHN, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. ANTHROPIC, PBC dba ANTHROPIC, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05763 (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2026) is a class action suit for Anthropic's misleading and deceptive marketing of its Claude Max subscription plans. According to the complaint, in its offer of monthly subscriptions to Claude, Defendant misleads prospective customers into believing that its higher priced tier for individual subscriptions, Max 20x, delivers expanded usage of twenty times greater than the amount of usage delivered by Defendant's lower tier Pro package. In fact, Defendant's Max 20x plan delivers far less than twenty times the usage of the Pro tier, delivering just six to eight times the usage of Pro. The Defendant markets and sells subscription plans to Claude, a generative AI agentic coding product. Subscribers can prompt Claude to answer research questions, draft or edit text, and write code, among other things. The Defendant's individual subscription plans cost $17-$20 per month at the Pro tier, $100 per month for the Max 5x plan, and $200 per month for the Max 20x plan. Consumers shopping for access to a Large Language Model like Claude typically look for the best quality services, the ability to access a high level of usage or "compute, " and the best price point, the suit contends. The Plaintiff and putative Class Members are Claude subscribers who have experienced monetary losses from Defendant's false and misleading claims. Based on Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the Class, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant offers commercial plans (Team and Enterprise) and individual plans (Free, Pro, and Max). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Vaca, Esq. Kati Daffan, Esq. VACA DAFFAN LLP 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1025 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 240-7021 E-mail: monica@vacadaffanlaw.com kati@vacadaffanlaw.com - and - Elliot Conn, Esq. Colin Hector, Esq. Kira Patterson, Esq. CONN LAW, PC 100 Bush Street, Suite 1580 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 417-2780 Facsimile: (415) 358-4941 E-mail: elliot@connlawpc.com colin@connlawpc.com kira@connlawpc.com ARCADIA CONSUMER: Fungi-Nail Cannot Treat Nail Fungus, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Arcadia Consumer Healthcare has falsely and misleadingly advertised its Fungi-Nail products as effective at treating nail fungus. The 20-page false advertising lawsuit claims that the packaging for Fungi-Nail pens, ointments and liquids is rife with misleading efficacy claims, including that Fungi-Nail "kills fungus" and "cure[s] and prevent[s]" nail fungi with a "maximum strength" formula. However, the suit highlights that Fungi-Nail packaging includes a fine-print disclaimer on the back label indicating that the products are not meant for the treatment of nail fungus, and that they are not effective at doing so. "Hundreds of thousands of consumers have purchased these products with the false belief that they treat nail fungus," the filing reads. "Because the Fungi-Nail products do not and cannot treat nail fungus, purchasing consumers have been misled." According to the complaint, the back label on Fungi-Nail product packaging includes qualifying statements such as "[t]his product is not effective on the scalp or nails" or "not for scalp or nail fungus." Per the lawsuit, these statements contradict the impression conveyed by the "Fungi-Nail" name, nail imagery and ad statements that the products are "clinically proven." Moreover, the back-label qualifying statements are not tied to the representations on the front label of Fungi-Nail products, as the lawsuit says they are not marked with an asterisk, callout or any other indicator that would present the information to consumers in a clear, conspicuous manner. The filing says that despite Arcadia Consumer Healthcare's awareness that "many" consumers do not read the products' back labels, the company has continued to make front-label claims about the products' suitability and effectiveness for the treatment of fungal infections, creating for consumers "the clear impression that such treatment is possible." The plaintiff, who the suit says suffers from chronic nail fungus, purchased Fungi-Nail under the belief that it was a medical treatment for nail fungus, with the reasonable expectation that it killed all fungus, including nail fungus. After applying the product "continuously" over several months, the plaintiff noticed no improvement to her condition, the filing claims. Per the case, Arcadia Consumer Healthcare has unfairly reaped millions of dollars in sales, as consumers have been induced into buying the Fungi-Nail items at issue by the products' packaging and marketing. The Fungi-Nail class action lawsuit looks to cover all Illinois residents who purchased Fungi-Nail products within the last four years. [GN] ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES: Faces Suit Over Stone Slabs' Health Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------ ISMAEL PEDRO CALDERON RODRIGUEZ, ELEODORO CALIXTO RODRIGUEZ, OTONIEL RAMIREZ ESCOBAR, MARIO SANCHEZ CANO, and ROGEIRO TORRES, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., Case No. 26STCV17927 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2026) seeks to secure essential healthcare for an especially vulnerable portion of the California population -- young immigrant men from Latin America who came to the United States and found work in California fabricating countertops from artificial stone slabs and installing fabricated artificial stone countertops in kitchens and bathrooms throughout the state. The Natural Stone Institute has estimated that approximately 3,000 fabricators in California and 12,000 to 20,000 fabricators in the U.S. have fabricated countertops from stone slabs. Artificial stone is an inherently defective product primarily because it contains extraordinarily high concentrations of crystalline silica, an extremely toxic substance that is not only a known human carcinogen that causes lung and other human cancers, but also causes other chronic human diseases, especially silicosis, kidney disease, and a large variety of autoimmune diseases. According to the complaint, California is the epicenter of a new silicosis epidemic, an occupational scourge of the past, the new epidemic occurring in Hispanic and Latino immigrant men who are now pulmonary cripples, tethered to oxygen tanks as they gasp for breath awaiting lung transplantation or death. As of completion of the drafting of this Complaint, 466 cases and 25 deaths from artificial stone-induced silicosis have been documented in young Latino men on the Engineered Stone Silicosis Surveillance Dashboard of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Thousands of young Hispanic immigrant men have fabricated deadly artificial stone in California over the last decade. They all have an extraordinarily high risk of developing silicosis, lung cancer and other silica-related diseases. Mostly undocumented workers, who lack medical insurance, workers' compensation, and medical care, these young men desperately need medical monitoring to detect the onset of silica-related disease and early medical treatment to prevent severe disease that would disable them from working to support their young wives and minor children. The CDPH and employers lack the resources and personnel to medically monitor these workers. This complaint is filed to require those responsible for the epidemic to fund medical monitoring of workers exposed to artificial stone dust in California to detect silica-related disease, the suit alleges. The Defendants include ARIZONA TILE, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; C & C NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; CAESARSTONE USA, INC., a California corporation; CAMBRIA COMPANY LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; DAL-TILE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DAL-TILE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DAL-TILE TENNESSEE, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company; ELITE QUARTZ MFG LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HYUNDAI L&C USA, INC., a Delaware limited liability company; LX HAUSYS AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation; M S INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; SURFACE WAREHOUSE, L.P., a Texas limited partnership.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Metzger, Esq. Scott P. Brust, Esq. METZGER LAW GROUP, APLC 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 800 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 437-4499 Facsimile: (562) 436-1561 E-mail: rmetzger@toxictorts.com sbrust@toxictorts.com ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: McZeal Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Antanese McZeal and Sydni Horne, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC a foreign limited liability company, ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD., a sole proprietorship, ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASHLEY PACIFIC NORTHWEST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-14572-5 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01945. The Amended Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA"), the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"), the Washington's Wage Rebate Act, and related regulations promulgated by Washington State. Specifically, the Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged violations; exemplary damages; attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy E. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu Che, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Email: mmacario@fisherphillips.com sche@fisherphillips.com ASSETMARK INC: ClassAction.org Investigates June 2026 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the AssetMark data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the AssetMark data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. AssetMark Security Incident: What Happened? AssetMark, a wealth management platform serving over 10,000 financial advisors and more than 300,000 investor households, has reported a data breach affecting 570,000 people. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that AssetMark discovered that an unauthorized actor accessed and downloaded files containing customer information on May 15, 2026, the same day the unauthorized access had occurred. On or around May 18 of the same year, AssetMark determined whose information was contained within the breached files. The AssetMark data breach impacted the company's own systems, rather than those of financial advisors who use AssetMark's platform. As reported to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation and the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and government ID numbers were potentially compromised in the incident. Notice letters were issued to those impacted by the data breach on June 11, 2026. What You Can Do After the AssetMark Data Breach If your information was exposed in the AssetMark data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force AssetMark to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] AT&T MOBILITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gray Suit Due Feb. 5, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER GRAY, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00597-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Whitehead entered an order setting the following deadlines: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Aug. 3, 2026 Close of fact discovery: Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline to file motion for class Feb. 5, 2027 certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion for March 5, 2027 class certification: Deadline to file Reply to motion for class March 19, 2027 certification: Hearing on class certification: To be announced The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. If the Court denies the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. These are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of the parties. AT&T provides wireless voice and data communications services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUu3af at no extra charge.[CC] AUTHENTEAK LLC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AUTHENTEAK, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01018-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the Local Rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed the plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Defendant is a provider of upscale outdoor furnishings. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzAUtg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AUTOCRUITMENT LLC: Clark Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autocruitment LLC. The case is styled as Linda Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Autocruitment LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03393-TWR-SBC (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. AutoCruitment -- https://www.autocruitment.com/ -- specializes in patient recruitment for clinical trials through its innovative, direct-to-patient technology platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vin Roy Venkatesh, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Email: vv@plgdamage.com BADGER METER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Badger Meter, Inc. ("Badger Meter" or the "Company") (NYSE: BMI) on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Badger Meter securities between April 18, 2024 and April 16, 2026 (the "Class Period"). If you are an investor in Badger Meter and have suffered losses, you may visit link https://www.kaplanfox.com/case/badger-meter-inc-shareholder-alert-learn-more-now/?utm_source=NewMediaWire&utm_medium=Press+Release&utm_campaign=BMI+NMW&utm_id=Badger+Meter to contact us. You may also contact Kaplan Fox by emailing pmayer@kaplanfox.com or by calling (646) 315-9003. DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than August 3, 2026 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the purported class. If you have losses we encourage you to contact us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. On April 17, 2026, Badger Meter reported first quarter 2026 results, including a deceleration of sales. Specifically, total sales of $202.3 million for the quarter were "9% lower than the prior year's $222.2 million." Additionally, the Company stated with respect to its first quarter operating results that "Utility water sales declined 10% year-over-year, reflecting project timing and other softer short-cycle municipal ordering . . . " Following this news, the price of Badger Meter shares declined by $36.75 per share, or more than 24%, to close at $115.54 per share on April 17, 2026. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the drivers of Badger Meter's "record" financial results, demand for the Company's products, and its prospects for continued growth. During the Class Period, Defendants allegedly told investors that Badger Meter's strong financial results reflected "ongoing favorable industry trends," "secular growth drivers," and "solid operating execution." They also allegedly touted "strong" demand and said they were seeing "robust order pacing and a strong bid pipeline that positions us well for continued sales and earnings growth," and that Badger Meter possessed a "long runway" for growth. According to the complaint, in truth, "Badger Meter's financial results during the Class Period were at least partially attributable to the Company's practice of pulling-forward customer orders to recognize revenue early, which concealed weakening demand and deteriorating near-term order trends. This practice also depleted revenue otherwise available for future periods, ultimately causing the disappointing financial results the Company later reported." WHY CONTACT KAPLAN FOX -- Kaplan Fox is a leading national law firm focusing on complex litigation with offices in New York, Oakland, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. With over 50 years of experience in securities litigation, Kaplan Fox offers the professional experience and track record that clients demand. Through prosecuting cases on the federal and state levels, Kaplan Fox has successfully shaped the law through winning many important decisions on behalf of our clients. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. If you have any questions about this Notice, your rights, or your interests, please contact: CONTACT: Pamela A. Mayer, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 (646) 315-9003 pmayer@kaplanfox.com Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 772-4704 lking@kaplanfox.com [GN] BANANA BLOSSOM: Pulliam Seeks Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNOR PULLIAM, ET AL., V. BANANA BLOSSOM THAI CAFÉ, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-01341-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting collective certification for the following two classes of putative Opt-In Plaintiffs: 1) Overtime Class "All non-exempt individuals who (1) are or were employed by Banana Blossom Thai Cafe, LLC at any point from three years prior to the date of filing this complaint up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, (2) are either the Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and (3) worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek, and were subject to Banana Blossom's blanket practice and/or policy of not paying overtime wages to employees working more than 40 hours per week." 2) Tip Pool Class "All non-exempt individuals who (1) are or were employed by Banana Blossom Thai Café, LLC at any point from three years prior to the date of filing this complaint up to and including the date of final judgment in this matter, (2) are either the Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and (3) were subject to a tip credit being taken by Banana Blossom." The Plaintiffs bring this collective action to challenge the Defendants' policy and practice of (1) failing to compensate their employees properly for overtime hours worked, and (2) subjecting employees to an illegal tip scheme. The Defenadnt is an eatery located in Gretna, dishing a menu of curries, rice dishes, noodles & other Thai favorites A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Con1h at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Most, Esq. Hope Phelps, Esq. MOST & ASSOCIATES 201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 2500, # 9685 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 500-7974 E-mail: hopeaphelps@outlook.com - and - Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq. Abigail Floresca, Esq. 3914 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 588-2700 Facsimile: (504) 708-1717 E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com BBBB BONDING: Seeks Relief from Failure to File Opposition ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BENTON, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. BBBB BONDING CORPORATION, CLIFFORD JEFFREY STANLEY, ROBERT HILL-VENN, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01294-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court for administrative relief from the Defendants' failure to file an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Rule 230, Civil Motion Calendar and Procedure, and Rule 233, Motions for Administrative Relief, as a result of excusable neglect under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(b)(1)(B). BBBB specializes in providing a range of bonding services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1kjKhw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Corren, Esq. Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CORREN % CORREN 3425 Brookside Road, Suite B Stockton, CA 95219 Telephone: (209) 478-2621 Facsimile: (209) 478-3038 E-mail: acorren@correnlaw.com ssinclair@correnlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq. Peter E. Garrell, Esq. Amir T. Alavi, Esq. GARRELL COHON KENNEDY LLP 550 S Hope Street, Suite 460 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 647-0732 E-mail: jcohon@gckllp.com pgarrell@gckllp.com aalavi@gckllp.com BLACK EMBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BLACK EMBER INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04896 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, www.blackember.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, the last occurring on April 30, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Citadel_R3 Backpack 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 Citadel_R3 Backpack, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: backpacks and slings, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Citadel_R3 Backpack. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Citadel_R3 Backpack 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 him 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 BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Violates Disabled Persons Act, Alvarez Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., OUT WEST RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC, OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 26STCV17988 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2026) alleges that Defendants violate the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of himself, and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative Class who has patronized or would like to patronize the restaurants. The Class consists of all mobility impaired/wheelchair-bound persons located in California who have patronized Outback Steakhouse restaurants identified herein, who have been, or who were, prior to the filing of the complaint, denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any of the Outback Steakhouse restaurants. Bloomin' is a American casual and polished-dining restaurant company that owns and operates more than 1,450 locations across 46 states, Guam, and 12 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-016 BLUE & GOLD FLEET: Peeples Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Peeples and Ryan Boatright on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLUE & GOLD FLEET, LP, a California limited partnership; PATRICK MURPHY, KENT MCGRATH, ADEN ANDERSON, as individuals; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV172175 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05391. The Complaint is based on allegations that "Defendants failed to compensate for all 'hours worked' (within the meaning of California law and applicable Wage Orders) and failed to pay overtime premium wages for work performed. This includes, but is not limited to, regular hours worked that were not compensated at minimum or agreed upon rates, overtime hours worked that were either not compensated, or compensated at rates lower than the applicable overtime premium wage rate, and uncompensated or undercompensated time." The Complaint also brings causes of action that derive in part or in whole from the overtime claim, including its fourth cause of action for failure to pay all wages owed upon termination; its seventh cause of action for failure to maintain accurate records pursuant to Cal. Labor Code section 226; and its eighth cause of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ari Hersher, Esq. Ryan McCoy, Esq. Petersen Walrod, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: ahersher@seyfarth.com rmccoy@seyfarth.com pwalrod@seyfarth.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that BMW agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that certain BMW vehicles are equipped with a defective antenna that allows water to leak into the vehicle. The BMW settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of 2019-2020 BMW X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 vehicles. According to the class action lawsuit, certain BMW vehicles equipped with a defective shark-fin antenna allowed water to leak into the vehicle. The component's sealing defect allegedly caused damage to the vehicle's telematics unit and other components. BMW is a luxury vehicle manufacturer that sells vehicles around the world, including in the United States. BMW has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the BMW settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for past repairs related to the shark-fin antenna defect. Repairs completed at a BMW center will be reimbursed at 100% with no cap. Repairs completed at an independent repair shop will be reimbursed at 100% up to a $2,000 cap. The class action settlement provided no-cost repairs for the antenna defect at BMW centers for 60 days after the settlement's final approval. After this period, BMW will extend its new vehicle limited warranty to cover these repairs for 10 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the class action settlement is scheduled for July 28, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 27, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits current and former owners and lessees of certain model year 2019 to 2020 BMW X3, X4, X5, X6 and X7 vehicles. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Documentation of repairs, such as a repair order with vehicle mileage at the time of replacement or service records from before and after the replacement; the cost of repair, with parts and labor separated; and proof of payment for the amount(s) sought for reimbursement (credit card receipt, credit card statement or canceled check). Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/27/2026 Case Name Craft v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06826-WJM-CF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Final Hearing 07/28/2026 Settlement Website SharkFinSettlement.com Claims Administrator Craft Claims Administrator c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 447-8559 Class Counsel Matthew D. Schelkopf Joseph B. Kenney SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC Defense Counsel Christopher J. Dalton Argia J. DiMarco Melissa J. Bayly Jordynn E. Jackson BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C. [GN] BOMBAS LLC: Faces Cheng Class Suit Over Deceptive Emails -------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others and similarly situated v. BOMBAS LLC, Case No. 26-2-18811-4 SEA (Wash. Super., King County, June 10, 2026) is a putative class action under Washington law brought to address deceptive and unlawful emails that plague consumers' inboxes pursuant to the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The Defendant markets its Products by email to Washington residents. The subject lines in these emails often promote "sales" and "discounts" on the Products. However, many subject lines are false, misleading, and unlawful because they promote discounts under false time restrictions, the suit says. Getting an advertised bargain is important to consumers. Consumers are more likely to purchase an item if it is advertised as a good deal. Further, if a sale is advertised as ending soon, consumers are even more likely to buy now, rather than wait, comparison shop, and/or buy something else, the suit added. The Defendant is an apparel brand that sells socks and clothing. The Products are sold by Defendant through its website https://bombas.com/ and in brick-and-mortar stores throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT: Wildman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Matthew Wildman, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOSCOV'S DEPARTMENT STORE, LLC, Case No. 26-2-14390-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01952. The Complaint asserts claims under Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of "all Washington residents who, during the Class Period, received a commercial email sent by the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant or with the Defendant's assistance, that contained messaging in the email subject line which misrepresented the facts of a sale, deal or promotion."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen C. Willey, Esq FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: 206.749.0500 Fax: 206.749.0600 Email: swilley@fennemorelaw.com - and - R. Coletta-Swidler, Esq Katherine J. Ellena, Esq Kya R. Coletta-Swidler, Esq REED SMITH LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.457.8000 Fax: 213.457.8080 Email: kellena@reedsmith.com kcoletta@reedsmith.com BREWERY OMMEGANG: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BREWERY OMMEGANG LTD., Case No. 1:26-cv-04839 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its commercial website, https://www.ommegang.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 15, 2026 and February 27, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Fun Friday's at the Tap House "Music Bingo" Brewery Event 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 Fun Friday's at the Tap House "Music Bingo" Brewery Event, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: brewery, tap house, restaurant and events, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. 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 BURLINGTON COAT: Ortiz Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MIRIAM ORTIZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. (Filed April 21, 2026), was removed from from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03261 to the proceeding. The Complaint purports to allege seven causes of action, on a class basis, as follows: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages upon termination; and (7) unfair competition.( The Plaintiffs purport to seek to represent a class of all of Defendants’ current and former non-exempt employees in California during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit through the present. Burlington, formerly known as Burlington Coat Factory, is an American national off-price retailer.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Whang, Esq. Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com 2029 emacgregor@seyfarth.com BYRON CITY, GA: Faces Carlan Suit Over Infrastructure Failures -------------------------------------------------------------- REVEREND JAMES THOMAS CARLAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF BYRON, GEORGIA, et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00228-MTT (M.D. Ga., June 5, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a Class of all similarly situated property owners and taxpayers in the State of Georgia whose public utility resources, water aquifers, and local ecosystems are being systematically impaired, depleted, or modified by unauthorized data center infrastructure developments. The Class encompasses thousands of affected residents. The Plaintiff has compiled a verified community petition of over 1,047 signatures and counting (now over a month old) demanding a public vote, alongside dozens of written citizen emails detailing direct economic and physical threats. The legal injury is identical across the Class. The Defendants are executing behind-the-back annexations, creating severe utility strains, and allowing unpublicized infrastructure failures without a public vote, thereby violating the shared rights of the collective people. The Defendants include MICHAEL CHIDESTER, in his personal and official capacity as Mayor of BYRON; MICHAEL CHUMBLEY, in his personal and official capacity as representative for THE CITY OF BYRON; RUSTY ADAMS, in his personal and official capacity as representative for THE CITY OF BYRON; JAMES RICHARDSON, in his personal and official capacity as representative for THE CITY OF BYRON; CHRIS HODGES, in his personal and official capacity as representative for THE CITY OF BYRON; THE PEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; BJ WALKER, in his personal and official capacity as representative for PEACH COUNTY; THE HOUSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; DAN PERDUE, in his personal and official capacity as representative for The COUNTY OF HOUSTON; THE CITY OF WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA; LARHONDA PATRICK, in her personal and official capacity as Mayor of WARNER ROBINS; DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(DAPC); ERGONX INDUSTRIAL PARK; HOLDING COMPANY LLC; BELTLINE ENERGY; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10; and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Metzger, Esq. METZGER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Website: www.toxictorts.com 555 E Ocean Blvd Ste 800 Long Beach, CA 90802-5090 Telephone: (562) 437-4499 Facsimile: (562) 436-1561 E-mail: rmetzger@toxictorts.com CAR-MART INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of America's Car-Mart, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRMT) resulting from allegations that America's Car-Mart may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased America's Car-Mart securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=46025 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On September 4, 2025, during market hours, Benzinga published an article entitled "America's Car-Mart Stock Plunges After Sales Volume Dip, Delinquency Uptick." The article stated that America's Car-Mart, Inc. stock was trading "lower after the company reported first-quarter results. The company reported a first-quarter loss of 69 cents per share, compared with a net loss of 15 cents per share in the year-ago period." On this news, America's Car-Mart's stock fell 18.2% on September 4, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CCS INTERVENTION: Nashville Court Maps Out TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Nancy MacKenzie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CCS Intervention Operations, LLC, d/b/a ComplexCare Solutions, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-00255 (M.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, entered an Initial Case Management Order governing the schedule of a putative class action filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to place non-emergency calls to cellular telephone numbers without prior express consent. Defendant maintained that its calls were non-marketing, informational communications to health-plan members, that it did not violate the TCPA, and that class-certification criteria are not met. The court set the following key deadlines: written discovery to close by April 30, 2027; Plaintiff's expert disclosures due January 29, 2027; Defendant's expert disclosures due February 26, 2027; and Plaintiff's motion for class certification due May 28, 2027. The parties agreed to participate in private mediation on or before February 26, 2027. A telephonic status conference was scheduled for March 29, 2027. The deadline for dispositive motions is to be determined following resolution of any class certification motion. A jury trial of approximately 10 to 15 days is anticipated, with a target trial date to be set after class certification is resolved. A copy of the Court's Initial Case Management Order dated June 11, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YLBatk from PacerMonitor.com CHATTEM INC: Amaral Files Suit Over Mislabeled Sleep Aid Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- TASHA AMARAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHATTEM INC. d/b/a Opella North America, and SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-5474 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for falsely labeling their product as "Non-Habit Forming," exploiting vulnerable consumers who seek relief from sleep difficulties, giving them a false sense of safety and security based on its "non-habit forming" representation. The complaint relates that the Defendants prominently marketed their Unisom(R) brand Over-The-Counter Sleep Aid Products that contain Diphenhydramine (the "Products") as "Non-Habit Forming", deliberately leading reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to incorrectly believe that the Products do not and cannot cause habitual use. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff purchased the Unisom SleepGels (60 count) for approximately $12.48 from Amazon.com while located in San Francisco, California. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or would not have paid as much for the Product, had Plaintiff known that the Challenged Representation was false. The Plaintiff seeks a monetary award for unjust enrichment in damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains to compensate Plaintiff and the Class, as well as injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants' misconduct to prevent ongoing and future harm that will result. Plaintiff Tasha Amaral is a resident of California who purchased the Unisom SleepGels. Defendants sell Unisom brand Over-The-Counter Sleep Aid Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana Hart, Esq. Cassandra Rasmussen, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com crasmussen@clarksonlawfirm.com CHOPCHEESE DELI: Cisnmeros Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELO CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHOPCHEESE DELI 2 CORP. (D/B/A CHOP CHEESE DELI 2), AND YOSEF A. ALKUTEENI, AND BISHOY KHALIL, Case No. 1:26-cv-04903 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Cisneros worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Cisneros appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Cisneros the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Cisneros to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Cisneros and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, the suit says. Plaintiff Cisneros is a former employee of Defendants Chopcheese Deli 2 Corp. (d/b/a Chop Cheese Deli 2), Yosef A. Alkuteeni, and Bishoy Khalil. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 3879 Broadway, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 CHRISTOPHER BECKER: Zappia Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Becker. The case is styled as Joseph Zappia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Christopher Becker, Case No. 615353/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com CLOUDFARE INC: Taylor Suit Challenges Recapitalization Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRUCE TAYLOR v. MATTHEW PRINCE, MICHELLE ZATLYN, SCOTT SANDELL, STACEY CUNNINGHAM, JOHN GRAHAM CUMMING, MARK HAWKINS, KARIM LAKHANI, CARL LEDBETTER, and KATRIN SUDER, Case No. 2026-0739 (Del. Ch., June 5, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated Class A common stockholders of Cloudflare, Inc., arising from a proposed conflicted controller recapitalization transaction. The action challenges the Recapitalization, a conflicted controller transaction specifically designed to allow Cloudflare's two co-founders and controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn (the Co-Founders), to continue to liquidate massive amounts of their equity while retaining majority voting control of the Company. Since the Company's initial public offering in 2019, Prince and Zatlyn have controlled the Company's voting power, primarily through ten-vote-per-share Class B common stock. Over the past several years, however, Prince and Zatlyn have sold massive amounts of Company stock, threatening to push them below the majority threshold. On May 29, 2026, the Company filed the Proxy seeking stockholder approval of the Recapitalization, which would (i) create a new class of non-voting Class C common stock and (ii) authorize a new Series FF preferred stock carrying nine votes per share and no economic interest, to be issued to Prince and Zatlyn in exchange for substantially all of their Class B shares. Following the Recapitalization, the Co-Founders will be able to sell Class C common stock without 2 losing any votes at all, and sell Class A common stock while giving up only one vote per share, all while maintaining control through the nine-vote per share Series FF. The Proxy states the Board's "goals" of the Recapitalization include permitting "appropriate levels of liquidity and diversification for the Co-Founders," and that the Special Committee focused on how the Co-Founders continued sales "would impact the Co-Founders' collective voting power." As a result, the Recapitalization provides the Co-Founders a non ratable benefit—the ability to sell massive amounts of equity while maintaining control. Nevertheless, the Recapitalization proposal only requires the affirmative vote of the holders of the Company's outstanding common stock. In other words, as the Proxy admits, the Co-Founders "have the power to approve and adopt the New Certificate without the affirmative vote of any other stockholder." The Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in this action to halt the unfair, power entrenching Recapitalization. Bruce Taylor is currently, and was at all relevant times, a beneficial owner of Cloudflare Class A common stock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (302) 330-8002 E-mail: daniel@jvk-law.com - and - Daniel M. Baker, Esq. Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. Jason Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com COCA-COLA CO: Barnes Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order: (i) granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify the following Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons within the United States who received at least one telephone call to his or her cellular telephone during the putative Class Period, made by or on behalf of the Defendant, in which the Defendant's records state the call resulted in "recording played" or "reminder call message played." (ii) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Arisohn LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff requests oral argument on this motion and estimates that one hour of argument will be required for the hearing. This motion is made on the grounds that certification is proper given that Plaintiff has met each requirement of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2). The Defendant allegedly placed calls to each class member using an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=STGwXf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd., Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (917) 656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Opposition in Barnes Due July 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order: 1. The parties' joint motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. 2. The Court's previous schedule is modified as follows. a. The Defendant shall file any opposition to the motion for class certification and rebuttal expert reports by no later than July 22, 2026. b. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the motion for class certification and reply expert reports by no later than Aug. 25, 2026. The parties state the basis for the extension is due to previously unplanned travel and Court obligations. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification and supporting expert reports remains unchanged and the deadline is currently set for June 8, 2026. Additionally, the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall remain Sept. 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Coca-Cola manufactures, sells and markets soft drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vryP3A at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Faces Tan Suit Over Unlawfully Imposed Tariff ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVETTE TAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, an Oregon corporation; COLUMBIA BRANDS USA, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and PRANA LIVING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01170-AN (D. Or., June 8, 2026) is an action for damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies and for violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, resulting from the Defendants' practice of charging their customers inflated prices in response to unlawfully imposed tariffs. The lawsuit arises from Defendants' retention of windfall profits generated as a consequence of the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This windfall is a direct result of Defendants systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to their own customers -- including Plaintiff -- through elevated product prices. Beginning on February 1, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Orders 14193, 14194, and 14195 imposing IEEPA-based duties on certain imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, respectively. On February 5, 2025, he issued Executive Order 14200 amending the duties addressing the synthetic opioid supply chain in the People's Republic of China. On March 3, 2025, he issued Executive Order 14228 further amending those duties. He later issued Executive Order 14245 on March 24, 2025 concerning tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil, and Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025 declaring a national emergency based on large and persistent United States goods trade deficits and imposing reciprocal tariffs on a broad range of trading partners. The Columbia Sportswear Company is an American company that manufactures and distributes outerwear, sportswear, and footwear, as well as headgear, camping equipment, ski apparel, and outerwear accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Klingbeil, Esq. RICK KLINGBEIL, PC 1826 NE Broadway Portland, OR 97232 Telephone: (503) 490-6763 E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com - and - Brady Mertz, Esq. BRADY MERTZ, PC 685 Church St. NE Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (503) 385-0121 E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com CORRAL BOOT: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CORRAL BOOT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01019-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the Local Rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed the plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Defendant offers a variety of women's cowboy boots. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6HSvOi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com COSTAR REALTY: Faces Class Suit Over Apartments.com Hidden Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jessica Divens filed a class action lawsuit against CoStar Realty Information Inc. Why: Divens claims CoStar charges hidden transaction fees on its Apartments.com platform. Where: The class action lawsuit was removed to Washington federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges the owner of Apartments.com charges consumers who pay rent through the platform unlawful transaction fees, also known as "junk fees". Plaintiff Jessica Divens claims CoStar Realty Information, the owner of Apartments.com, charged her a $6.60 transaction fee -- that was not disclosed to her in her lease agreement -- after she used the platform to pay rent. "Defendant's fee is a classic example of a company-imposed 'junk fee' that serves solely as a profit generator for [Apartments.com] while providing no added value to consumers," the Apartments.com class action lawsuit says. Divens claims the process automatically lards online checkout flows with an unexpected fee, then forces consumers to find a way to remove it -- a practice condemned by the Federal Trade Commission. Divens wants to represent a nationwide class and Washington state subclass of consumers who were charged a transaction fee when making a rent payment on Apartments.com Apartments.com fees amount to 'unexpected rent,' class action claims Divens argues the transaction fees imposed by Apartments.com are ultimately deceptive since the company fails to inform consumers that the fee "is not permitted by their residential leases." "Indeed, the transaction fee amounts to additional, unexpected rent for tenants that is undisclosed in lease agreements," the Apartments.com class action lawsuit says. Divens claims CoStar Realty Information is guilty of unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory and treble damages for herself and all class members. The class action lawsuit was originally filed in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Thurston County in April but was removed to the federal court in May under the Class Action Fairness Act. In 2025, two consumers filed a similar class action lawsuit against Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC and Greystar California Inc. over claims it charged tenants illegal fees for pest control and trash services. The plaintiff is represented by Kim D. Stephen and Cecily C. Jordan of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC; Sophia G. Gold, Amanda J. Rosenberg and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of KalielGold PLLC; and Melissa S. Weiner and Ryan T. Gott of Pearson Warshaw LLP. The Apartments.com class action lawsuit is Divens v. CoStar Realty Information Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05508, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] CRACKER BARREL: Liptak FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Liptak, Ashley Gillespie, Tonya Miller, Tami Brown, Sarah Mangano, Andrew Harrington, Katie Liammaytry, Jason Lenchert, Dylan Basch, individually and behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Incorporated, Case No. 2:26-cv-03831 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-40149-MRG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Collect Unpaid Wages. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. -- https://www.crackerbarrel.com/ -- is a publicly traded American chain of combined restaurant and gift stores established in 1969.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Harris Sud, Esq. SUD & PIERCE PLLC 141 E Palm Ln., Ste. 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (309) 310-6909 Email: jsud@sudandpierce.com - and - Nitin Sud, Esq. SUD LAW P.C. 6750 West Loop South, Suite 920 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Phone: 832-623-6420 Fax: 832-304-2552 Email: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com - and - Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MONIKA SUD-DEVARAJ, PLLC 141 E. Palm Lane, Ste. 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 234-0782 Email: monika@msdlawaz.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Coleman, Esq. Jason Daniel Friedman, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE. LLP 12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22033 Phone: (571) 522-6111 Fax: (571) 522-6101 Email: jcoleman@constangy.com jfriedman@constangy.com - and - Jeffrey Stephen Hunter, Esq. William W. Drury, Jr., Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL LLC - PHOENIX 1 N Central, Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 307-9900 Email: jhunter@wwhgd.com wdrury@wwhgd.com - and - Miles M. Masog, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP - PHOENIX 2 N Central Ave., Ste. 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 794-2460 Email: mmasog@grsm.com - and - Jonathan D. Persky, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP. 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1005 Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 607-6384 Fax: (617) 849-7870 Email: jpersky@constangy.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: King Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DentaQuest Group, Inc. The case is styled as Melissa King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DentaQuest Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-12529 (D. Mass., June 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DentaQuest -- https://www.dentaquest.com/ -- part of Sun Life U.S., is a purpose-driven health care company dedicated to improving the oral health of all.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com DIADORA US: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DIADORA U.S., INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01020-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the Local Rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed the plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Defendant is an Italian sportswear and footwear manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IepAXk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Thomas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dolgen California, LLC. The case is styled as Kenric Thomas, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Dolgen California, LLC, Case No. 26STCV17641 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC doing business as Dollar General -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is an American chain of dollar stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com DOXIM INC: Agrees to Settle 2026 Data Breach Suit for $5.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Doxim, Inc. has agreed to a $5,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the third-party services provider for credit unions failed to safeguard confidential information pertaining to its credit union clients, leading to a December 2023 data breach. The $5.5 million Doxim class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 5, 2026. The agreement covers all living United States residents identified by Doxim and sent notice by Doxim or its credit union clients that their private information was impacted in the December 2023 data breach. ClassAction.org will update this page when the Doxim class action settlement website is live. Doxim settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data breach. This benefit covers expenses related to identity theft and fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, professional fees, postage, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an estimated $100 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payment may be larger or smaller, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Finally, all class members can submit a claim form to receive one year of credit monitoring, which includes identity theft insurance. The court will determine whether to grant the Doxim settlement final approval following a hearing on October 28, 2026. Compensation will only begin to be distributed to class members after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Doxim class action lawsuit alleged that the financial services provider, which prepares account statements and income tax forms for credit union clients such as Beacon and Credit Union ONE, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect clients' confidential information, allegedly leading to a data breach on or about December 30, 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been impacted by the breach included names, addresses, financial account numbers and Social Security numbers. [GN] DRE VISION: Scott Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN W. SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRE VISION STUDIOS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; ANDRE JACKSON, an individual; YULIA SAFONOVA, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 2:26-cv-06450 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees as well as reimbursement of costs and such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff during the week ending December 2, 2023. The wages were due on or before Friday, December 8, 2023. No paycheck check was even prepared until on or after January 10, 2024. The Plaintiff worked for at least three eight 8 hour days, but was not paid any premium meal period or rest break wage for any day, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for at least two eight hour days during the week ending December 9, 2023. DRE VISION STUDIOS, LLC is a studio company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com DUPONT SPECIALTY: Class Cert Filing in Bower Extended to July 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUPONT SPECIALTY: Class Cert Filing in Bower Extended to July 15 In the class action lawsuit captioned as BREANA A. BOWER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC, and DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00453-MAK (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for Rule 23 class certification by 14 days until July 15, 2026. This extension will allow the Parties additional time to conduct depositions after receiving the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, when the Parties will know whether an FLSA collective was certified. Additionally, the Parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions, and any extension on the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification under Rule 23 would allow the Parties additional time to engage in those discussions and potentially avoid the need for the filing of any motion or further depositions. The alternative is for the Parties to conduct discovery in phases—one phase now relating to Ohio facilities, and a second phase later related to a broader scope of facilities if the Court certifies a broader FLSA collective that includes facilities outside Ohio. DuPont is a science company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bVroFb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4660 - and - Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP 3208 Clinton Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 815-9500 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com - and - Jason P. Matthews, Esq. JASON P. MATTHEWS, LLP 130 West Second Street, Suite 924 Dayton, OH 45402 Telephone: (937) 608-4368 Facsimile: (888) 577-3589 E-mail: jason@daytonemploymentlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren E.M. Russell, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 North Market Street, 6th Fl. Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Telephone: (302) 984-6003 Facsimile: (302) 658-1192 E-mail: lrussell@potteranderson.com - and - Eric Magnus, Esq. Yedidyah Charner, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 586 1820 E-mail: eric.magnus@jacksonlewis.com Jed.Charner@jacksonlewis.com EDGIO INCORPORATED: Class Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esfandiari v. Edgio Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Humetewa entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a Class (the "Settlement Class") consisting of: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Edgio common stock (including shares of Limelight common stock, before the company changed its name to Edgio) between Feb. 12, 2021 and March 10, 2023, inclusive." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendants, (ii) any present or former officers and directors of Edgio during the Class Period (the "Excluded D&Os"), (iii) members of the Defendants' and Excluded D&Os' Immediate Family, (iv) the Affiliates of any Defendant, (v) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant or any other excluded person or entity has or had a majority ownership interest; and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing exclusions do not apply where the person or entity that is excluded from the Settlement Class (or the entity in which such person or entity has a majority ownership interest) acts as nominee, trustee, street name holder, fund manager, or in any other fiduciary capacity for persons or entities who otherwise would be entitled to be included in the Settlement Class. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons who, or entities which, exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court; 2. Lead Plaintiff is certified as the class representative of the Settlement Class and the law firms of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and The Schall Law Firm are appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. A Settlement Hearing is scheduled to be held before the Court on Sept. 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The proposed Settlement Amount is $15,000,000, and the Plaintiff has established that this reflects approximately 10% of the maximum reasonably recoverable damages. Edgio was a global Content Delivery Network (CDN) and edge computing provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F9LYlE at no extra charge.[CC] EMBURSE INC: Heiting Sues Over Unlawful Use of Data Broker Software ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Heiting, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMBURSE, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-01853-N (N.D. Tex., June 4, 2026), is brought for violation of the California Trap and Trace Law as a result of the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--https://www.emburse.com/ (the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data, and correlates it with extensive external records the data broker already has about most Californians, for the purpose of learning the identity of the Website visitor. The Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. The Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on June 11, 2025, while in California. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls https://www.emburse.com/ which offers expense management, travel booking, invoice processing, and corporate card management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 - and - 100 Crescent Court, 7th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (512) 456-8760 EQUIFAX INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Equifax illegally sold or otherwise provided Colorado residents' phone numbers to businesses and other clients via online directories without first obtaining consent. According to the 12-page data privacy lawsuit, Equifax violated Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PTFA), which prohibits listing a cell phone number in a directory for commercial purposes without permission, by selling commercial access to thousands of Colorado residents' personal cell phone numbers. Specifically, per the suit, Equifax includes phone numbers and other personal information in its BusinessConnect for Marketing, Digital Identity Trust, Marketing Identity Elements, Contact and Locate, TargetPoint Alerts and FirstSearch directories without requesting or receiving consumers' permission. Through these products, access to which requires subscriptions, credits or other types of payment, Equifax monetizes people's personal data for its own gain, either to entice clients to pay for access to its products or to fulfill its obligations to subscribers and customers, the filing alleges. The lawsuit notes that consumer data is one of the most valuable currencies in the modern business landscape, calling it the key pillar of the $26 billion-per-year online advertising industry. Each person's private data, the case states, "possesses inherent monetary value." As consumers become increasingly aware of the economic value of their data, they are willing to pay more for services from companies that are committed to protecting that privacy, the suit says. According to a 2014 survey, 89 percent of consumers avoid doing business with companies they do not believe protect their privacy online, the case relays. The lawsuit claims Equifax's alleged sale of Colorado cell numbers "deprives state residents of the ability to enjoy their PTFA privacy rights . . . [and] of the real, quantifiable value of such data." Additionally, the accessibility of "people search sites," such as those offered by Equifax, makes people's sensitive personal information readily available to "malicious actors," the suit alleges, putting many at risk of stalking and other types of harassment, as well as making them easier targets for fraudulent telemarketing, more convincing scams and identity theft. The Equifax class action lawsuit seeks to represent all Colorado residents who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, had their cell phone numbers listed on one of Equifax's directory products -- which include BusinessConnect for Marketing, Contact and Locate, Digital Identity Trust, FirstSearch, Marketing Identity Elements and TargetPoint Alerts -- without their consent. [GN] EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Majernik Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MAJERNIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-04874 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated owners of certain universal life insurance policies insured by Equitable. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of policyholders who have been forced to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges imposed by Equitable. Universal life policies are variable rate contracts. Unlike term or whole life policies, whose premiums are generally fixed and disclosed in advance, universal life policies have separate policy charges that are determined on an ongoing, prospective basis. The charges and rates are variable and are required to be determined according to the factors set forth in the policy. Where permitted or required by the policy language, insurers determine COI rates considering their expectations of future corporate taxes. Prior to 2017, most U.S.-based insurers used a 35% federal income tax assumption when pricing their universal life products, mirroring the then-prevailing federal corporate income tax rate. In late 2017, however, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. This was a boon for life insurance companies like Equitable. On a Q1 2018 earnings call, CEO Mark Pearson told analysts that Equitable estimates "the benefit of corporate tax reform to be circa 150 million per annum. And going forward, we estimate our effective tax rate will be approximately 19%." It is apparent that Equitable wrongly construes its policies as granting it a nonsensical "heads win, tails you lose" power, reserving the right to increase COI rates and charges in response to adverse changes in its tax and mortality expectations, but not requiring it to decrease COI deductions and rates and charges in the face of an unambiguous and far more dramatic reduction in future expectations of mortality and taxes. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the policies. As a result of Equitable's breaches, the Plaintiff seeks monetary relief for the COI overcharges Equitable has wrongly imposed on Plaintiff and all of its similarly situated customers who each own policies with the same or materially similar language at issue in this complaint, says the suit. Majernik owns a universal life policy issued by Equitable's predecessor on November 7, 1985 as policy number 35205206. Equitable is a financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Emily Portuguese, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com eportuguese@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley Josephs, Esq. Kimberly C. Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: 310-789-3100 Facsimile: 310-789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com ERASCA INC: Faces Cheng Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- CHING CHING CHENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERASCA, INC., JONATHAN LIM, and DAVID CHACKO Case No. 3:26-cv-03481-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 10, 2026) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Erasca common stock during the period from January 14, 2025 through April 26, 2026, inclusive, who were damaged thereby in violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material facts, including that ERAS-0015's preclinical data was based on improper comparisons to Revolution Medicines, Inc. and placed Erasca at risk of violating patent and trade secret protections. On April 27, 2026, at 8:31 a.m. EDT before the market opened, Erasca disclosed in a Form 8-K that it had received a letter from legal counsel for RevMed alleging that Erasca's ERAS 0015 infringes a RevMed patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,409,225) and is connected to alleged trade secret misappropriation. RevMed also alleged that Erasca had "improperly compared preclinical data of ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236 in public disclosures" and demanded Erasca cease making "deceptive and untrue comparative statements comparing ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236." Erasca stated that it believes the assertions are without merit and intends to contest the allegations. In response to this news, Erasca's stock price fell from a closing price of $21.49 on April 24, 2026 to open at $20.70 per share on April 27, 2026. Erasca's stock price continued to fall, closing at $19.15 on April 27, 2026. Later, at about 4:17 p.m. EDT on April 27, 2026, Erasca filed a separate Form 8-K reporting preliminary Phase 1 clinical data for ERAS-0015 and disclosing that one patient that received 24 mg of ERAS-0015 had died approximately a month after starting ERAS-0015. The patient was classified as a "Grade 3 TRAE of pneumonitis" that "progressed to Grade 5 after withdrawal of supportive care per patient decision." Erasca further stated that comparisons between ERAS-0015 and other product candidates, including RMC-6236, were based on cross-study analyses and "not based on any head-to-head clinical trials," and that such comparisons are "inherently limited and such data may not be directly comparable." In response to these revelations, the price of Erasca common stock declined more than 45% in premarket trading, from a closing price of $19.15 per share on April 27, 2026 to an opening price of $10.51 per share on April 28, 2026. The Company's stock continued to decline, closing at $9.90 per share on April 28, 2026. 8. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased Erasca common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Erasca develops oncology therapies for patients with RAS/MAPK pathway-driven cancers. One of its primary drug candidates is ERAS-0015, a pan-RAS molecular glue targeting solid tumors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 400 Concar Drive San Mateo CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 781-0025 E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com ERASCA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Erasca, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERAS) securities between January 14, 2025 and April 26, 2026. Erasca, Inc., a clinical-stage precision oncology company, focuses on discovering, developing, and commercializing therapies for patients with RAS/MAPK pathway-driven cancers. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Erasca, Inc. (ERAS) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material facts, including that: (1) ERAS-0015's preclinical data was based on improper comparisons to Revolution Medicines, Inc. ("RevMed") and placed Erasca at risk of violating patent and trade secret protections; and (2) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements related to ERAS-0015. Plaintiff alleges that on April 27, 2026, at 8:31 a.m. EDT before the market opened, Erasca disclosed in a Form 8-K that it had received a letter from legal counsel for RevMed alleging that Erasca's ERAS-0015 infringes a RevMed patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,409,225) and is connected to alleged trade secret misappropriation. RevMed also alleged that Erasca had "improperly compared preclinical data of ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236 in public disclosures" and demanded Erasca cease making "deceptive and untrue comparative statements comparing ERAS-0015 and RMC-6236." Erasca stated that it believes the assertions are without merit and intends to contest the allegations. On this news, the price of Erasca's common stock fell from $21.49 per share on April 24, 2026 to $19.15 per share on April 27, 2026. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Erasca, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit link https://robbinsllp.com/erasca-inc/. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Erasca, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ERMI LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cantu Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA CANTU and JAYNE PARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERMI, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03158-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2026) alleges that the ERMI failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and Class Members. In the ordinary course of business, ERMI collects, stores, and maintains individuals' PII and PHI, and ERMI, is required to implement reasonable safeguards to protect such information from unauthorized access and disclosure. On or about July 25, 2025, the Defendant learned that an unauthorized actor may have gained access to a limited number of its employee email accounts. The Defendant's subsequent investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed, and may have removed, files within Defendant's systems between approximately February 15, 2025, and August 14, 2025. On or about April 17, 2026, the Defendant determined that those files may have contained the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs and Class Members entrusted their Private Information to Defendant, directly or indirectly, with the reasonable expectation and mutual understanding that Defendant would safeguard it and use reasonable measures to protect it from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant failed to do so, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury, including the loss of control over their Private Information, the present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud, lost time responding to the Data Breach, diminution in the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and the costs of mitigation, and remain at heightened risk of harm for years to come. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to recover damages and to obtain equitable relief, including injunctive and declaratory relief, requiring Defendant to adopt and maintain reasonable data-security measures, to provide adequate notice and identity-monitoring services, and to compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for the harm caused by the Data Breach. ERMI is a medical device company with a principal place of business in Georgia that partners with healthcare professionals to provide patients with home-based rehabilitative devices and programs designed to restore joint mobility following surgery.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com ERMI LLC: Fails to secure Sensitive Info, Garr Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD GARR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ERMI LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03173-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2026) is a class 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 Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided their sensitive data to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. In connection with the services Defendant provides, the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide sensitive data to Defendant, including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information, dates of birth, driver's license number, Veteran identification number, Passport number, username and password, email address with password and security question, taxpayer/employer identification number, financial account information, and payment card information (Private Information). Th Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was subsequently exfiltrated by the unauthorized individual. Accordingly, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Defendant is a provider of medical devices that partners with physicians, physical and occupational therapists, nurse case managers, and other healthcare professionals to provide technology and services to patients to accelerate the recovery of motion loss after surgeries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com ostrow@kolawyers.com FAST CARE: Elsafty Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEX ELSAFTY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FAST CARE LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00056-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., June 5, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and employment benefits in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia Misclassification Law, and related claims. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA and VOWA by having a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA and VMWA by having a policy or practice of failing to pay minimum wages compensation to Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees in at least some workweeks. The Defendant is in the business of transporting patients to medical appointments. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are hourly-pay employees who transport those patients, including across state lines, on behalf of the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 123 East Main Street, Suite 100 #8 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Ram ProMaster Vans' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Victor Gonzalez and Stuart Glick filed a class action lawsuit against FCA US LLC, doing business as Stellantis North America. Why: Gonzalez and Glick allege Stellantis falsely advertises its 2022 and 2023 Ram ProMaster vans as having nine-speed automatic transmissions. Where: The Stellantis class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Stellantis falsely advertises its 2022 and 2023 Ram ProMaster vans as having nine-speed automatic transmissions when they only have seven usable gears. Plaintiffs Victor Gonzalez and Stuart Glick filed the class action complaint against FCA US on April 24 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Stellantis advertised its 2022 and 2023 Ram ProMaster vans as having a "9-Speed Automatic Transmission," but the vans are too slow to ever activate the eighth and ninth gears, making them only seven-speed vehicles in practice. The plaintiffs allege Stellantis designed the extra gears to make more money, as more gears usually mean better fuel efficiency and reliability, which would justify a higher price for the vans. Stellantis knew about Ram ProMaster transmission issue, class action claims Stellantis sold approximately 60,937 Ram ProMaster vans in the United States in 2022, the plaintiffs say. The company marketed the vans as having an upgraded transmission from a six-speed to a nine-speed, promising that the higher gears would help lower engine rpm speeds, the lawsuit claims. However, the Ram ProMaster class action lawsuit alleges the vans' automatic software does not allow them to engage the eighth or ninth gears because the vans' design is too big and boxy, and the software "will never detect a situation in which engaging those gears is beneficial to performance." As a result, the plaintiffs claim the vans' transmission performance is functionally identical to that of the previous six-gear models despite the higher price tag. The plaintiffs allege Stellantis knew or should have known about the issue but chose to market and sell the vans as having nine-speed transmissions anyway. They claim Stellantis omitted and concealed the truth about the vans from consumers, who could not have discovered it until after they had already purchased them. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased or leased a 2022 or 2023 Ram ProMaster van. They are suing for violations of state and federal consumer laws and are seeking certification of the Ram ProMaster class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In another FCA US–related lawsuit, Chrysler is accused of failing to maintain reasonable data security, allowing hackers to access Stellantis-related systems and customer information. The plaintiffs are represented by Thiago M. Coelho, Chumahan B. Bowen and Jesenia A. Martinez of Wilshire Law Firm PLC and Stefan Bogdanovich of Bursor & Fisher P.A. The Ram ProMaster class action lawsuit is Gonzalez, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04407, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] FINAL TOUCH: Del Prado Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS F. VELEZ DEL PRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINAL TOUCH LOGISTICS LLC (d/b/a FINAL TOUCH), FOX LOGISTICS LLC, and FELIX TRELLES (a/k/a Felix Trellez), Case No. 2:26-cv-07069 (D.N.J., June 11, 2026) is a civil action for unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unlawful retaliation, and related relief arising from Defendants' willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours per week, and frequently more, but the Defendants paid him only a flat hourly rate for all hours worked and never paid him the overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, as required by the FLSA and the NJWHL. In addition, the flat hourly rates that Defendants paid Plaintiff -- $11.00, then $12.00, then $14.00, and finally $15.00 per hour -- were, throughout the entirety of his employment, below the applicable New Jersey minimum wage, in violation of the NJWHL. The Defendants failed to keep accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked. For most of his employment Defendants maintained no reliable timekeeping system; instead, a manager recorded employees' overtime hours by hand in a notebook. The Defendants did not install a time clock until approximately 2025. After Plaintiff requested that Defendants pay him correctly, including proper overtime compensation, Defendants terminated his employment on or about June 3, 2026. Plaintiff brings a separate claim for unlawful retaliation under the FLSA and the NJWHL, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a warehouse and logistics laborer from on or about October 7, 2023 through on or about June 3, 2026 -- approximately two years and eight months. The Defendants operate a logistics and warehouse-labor business in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 832-1000 www.stillmanlegalpc.com FLEX-N-GATE CORP: Agrees to $3MM Employee Overtime Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who worked as an hourly production employee at Flex-N-Gate, Flex-N-Gate Royal Oak, Flex-N-Gate Royal Oak, Ventra Evart or Ventra Salem at certain locations and worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek between Aug. 8, 2022, and Feb. 25, 2026, may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. The class includes 11,516 current and former employees. Flex-N-Gate and its affiliates agreed to pay $3,000,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they failed to properly pay overtime wages to certain hourly production employees. The plaintiffs claimed the companies did not fully compensate workers for all time worked, including overtime, in violation of federal and state wage laws. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are current or former hourly production employees of Flex-N-Gate, Flex-N-Gate Royal Oak, Flex-N-Gate Royal Oak, Ventra Evart or Ventra Salem. -- They worked at one or more of the following locations: Ada, Oklahoma; Chicago, Illinois; Covington, Indiana; Evart, Michigan; Royal Oak, Michigan; Salem, Ohio; Sandusky, Ohio; Troy, Michigan; or Grand Rapids, Michigan. -- They worked 40 or more hours in at least one workweek during the period from Aug. 8, 2022, to Feb. 25, 2026. -- They have not already joined this case by filing a consent to join form. How much are settlement payments? -- Minimum settlement payment: All eligible class members who do not opt out will receive a minimum pro rata cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the payment amount by the number of weeks the class member worked during the qualifying period compared to all eligible participants. -- Increased settlement payment: Class members can submit a claim form to receive double the minimum settlement payment. The settlement administrator will report half of each payment as wages (W-2) and half as non-wages (1099). How to claim a class action rebate To receive the minimum settlement payment, class members do not need to submit a claim form. To receive double the minimum payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Flex-N-Gate Wage Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007 The claim deadline is Aug. 7, 2026. Required claim information To submit an online claim, class members must provide the claim number and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided or the last address on file. Settlement fund breakdown The $3,000,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,000,000 -- Attorneys' costs: To be determined -- Service awards to named plaintiffs: $7,500 each -- Discovery payments to certain opt-in plaintiffs: $500 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Claim form deadline: Aug. 7, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 7, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Aug. 17, 2026 When is the Flex-N-Gate employee overtime settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action settlement resolves claims that Flex-N-Gate and its affiliates failed to properly pay hourly production employees for all time worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws. The companies deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: August 7, 2026 [GN] FOOD AND COMPANY: Barca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Food and Company Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael F. Barca, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Food and Company Inc., Joan's On Third, JOTSC, JOTSC LLC, Case No. 26STCV17595 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Food & Company -- https://www.foodandcompany.co/ -- is a story-driven food marketing agency using client products and innovative recipes to develop private label content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Power Jean Hopkins, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cason Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL CASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-24087 (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2026) is an action on behalf of herself and all other individuals similarly situated) against Gastro Health for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class Members. On February 25, 2026 and again on March 2, 2026, Gastro Health learned that an unauthorized third party had gained access to its network and accessed and obtained files containing PII/PHI of its patients (the Data Breach). Gastro Health reported the incident on its website, at https://gastrohealth.com/data-security-event. Gastro Health owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. Gastro Health breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure, or by contracting with companies that failed to do so, says the suit. The Defendant operates medical clinics across multiple states relating to gastrointestinal (and related) care. In the regular course of its business, Gastro Health collects, stores, and maintains the PII/PHI of individuals and is required to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to protect such information from unauthorized access and disclosure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Valentina Rios Barboza, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 E-mail rjimenez@brysonpllc.com; vbarboza@brysonpllc.com; lblanco@brysonpllc.com; ajaramillo@brysonpllc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Rear Sliding Window Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that General Motors has concealed a dangerous defect in certain 2019-2020 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles that render the rear sliding glass windows susceptible to water intrusion, which could lead to mold growth and electrical problems. The 16-page lawsuit asserts that General Motors has actively concealed the rear sliding window defect in model year 2019-2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD, 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 3500HD, 2019-2020 GMC Sierra 1500, 2020 GMC Sierra 2500 HD and 2020 GMC Sierra 3500HD trucks. The suit explains that the affected vehicles' rear window consists of fixed glass and a sliding glass, with the window frame made of plastic and sealed with urethane. Per the case, the rear sliding window seal can crack or leak, allowing water intrusion and causing damage to the vehicles' structure, materials and indoor environment. According to the complaint, water leaks can cause hazardous conditions, such as unfettered mold growth, which can cause physical harm to a vehicle's occupants, and electrical failure. The filing says that it is critical for automotive manufacturers to design "robust" rear windows and seals to avoid water-related damage. Additionally, the filing says that it is "obvious" that General Motors was aware of the alleged water intrusion defect. Per the lawsuit, the automaker on January 3, 2019 issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) entitled "Water Found in Rear Interior of Cab, Water Leak at Rear Sliding Window" that posited the water intrusion was a result of possible cracking in the upper rail glass guide or a leak in the primary urethane seal. Notably, the lawsuit states that the TSB was revised and expanded 12 times to cover the vehicle models at issue, with the last revision made on March 7, 2023, the suit says. "The bulletin, by virtue of its very existence, and by virtue of the fact that it applies to all of the [c]lass [v]ehicles, and no other vehicles, is an acknowledgement of a classwide problem relating to the rear sliding window," the case conveys. Moreover, the automotive lawsuit says General Motors, which the filing says has superior knowledge of the alleged defect through its dealerships, pre-release testing data, warranty data, consumer complaints and more, has failed to disclose the defect to consumers, refused to cover defect-related repairs unless a vehicle is under warranty, and has not made "any actual effort" to protect consumers from the subsequent safety problems the defect presents. Moreover, General Motors represents to consumers that its vehicles are of "excellent" quality, reliable and safe, even as it "silently" continues to sell the allegedly defective class vehicles, the case shares. The plaintiff, who owns a 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 truck, brought his vehicle to a dealership after observing water intrusion, the complaint says. While the dealership was able to conduct repairs, the plaintiff incurred over $1,000 in out-of-pocket costs that were not covered under warranty, the suit mentions. The General Motors window defect class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in California who purchased or leased any of the vehicle models listed on this page that were first placed into service after January 3, 2019. [GN] GENERAL SERVICES: Renshaw Sues Over First Amendment Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Naphtali Renshaw; Susan Barnhart; Tyrras Warren; Michael Carrigan; Christopher Rompala; and Charles Areford, and others similarly situated v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Case No. 6:26-cv-01127-MTK (D. Ore., June 4, 2026), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arising from the Defendants' violations of the APA; the First Amendment to the Constitution; various statutes governing public access to federal buildings; and their implementing regulations. The Plaintiffs challenge a decision of the federal government to construct a tall fence around the Eugene federal building, blocking a large portion of the Free Speech Plaza located therein. The Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are human rights activist. General Services Agency, as an agency of the federal government, manages federal property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marianne Dugan, Esq. Lauren Regan, Esq. CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE CENTER 1711 Willamette St., Ste 301 # 359 Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: (541) 687-9180 Email: mdugan@cldc.org lregan@cldc.org GO GET ORGANIZED: Earle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Abigale Delainy Earle, and all other similarly situated employees v. GO Get Organized, LLC and Laura Carden, Case No. 2:26-cv-00960-AMM (N.D. Ala., June 4, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff typically worked beyond 40 hours in a single workweek. Throughout her employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked beyond forty (40) in a single workweek. the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty in a work week. Despite notice of Plaintiff's potential misclassification, Defendants unreasonably failed to make good-faith efforts to ensure that their pay practices were compliant with the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendant in the counties composing the Northern District of Alabama. GO Get Organized, LLC is a company registered and doing business in the State of Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen D. Arnold, Esq. ALLEN D. ARNOLD, LLC 6 Office Park Circle, Suite 209 Birmingham, AL 35223 Phone: (205) 252-1550 Email: ada@allenarnoldlaw.com whitney@allenarnoldlaw.com GREGG DRILLING: Muro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gregg Drilling, LLC. The case is styled as Frank Muro, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gregg Drilling, LLC, Case No. 26STCV17680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Gregg Drilling, LLC -- https://greggdrilling.com/ -- offers a wide range of services for environmental, geotechnical and marine site investigation and remediation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com GROCERY DELIVERY: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. doing business as: Hello Fresh, Case No. 3:26-cv-03392-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc. doing business as Hello Fresh -- https://www.hellofresh.com/ -- is one of the largest meal-kit providers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vin Roy Venkatesh, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Email: vv@plgdamage.com HELEN OF TROY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Helen of Troy Limited, ("Helen of Troy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HELE) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between May 13, 2025 and February 19, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Helen of Troy investors have until August 4, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/helen-of-troy-limited. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. Helen of Troy operates as a consumer products company. In 2023, Helen of Troy allegedly initiated Project Pegasus, a global restructuring program that focused on both efficiency and effectiveness. The Helen of Troy class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Project Pegasus would not, and was not on track to, realize the savings, efficiency, or effectiveness that Helen of Troy consistently touted. On July 9, 2024, Helen of Troy announced its 2025 first quarter results, allegedly reflecting a 49% decrease in earnings per share year-over year and reducing its full year revenue outlook by more than 20%. On this news, the price of Helen of Troy stock fell nearly 28%, according to the complaint. On July 10, 2025, Helen of Troy announced its 2026 first quarter results, allegedly reflecting a net sales decline of 11% year-over-year and a nearly 60% decline in adjusted earnings per share. The Helen of Troy class action lawsuit further alleges that Helen of Troy announced a $414.4 million goodwill impairment. On this news, the price of Helen of Troy stock fell nearly 23%, according to the complaint. Finally, on October 9, 2025, Helen of Troy announced its 2026 second quarter results, allegedly revealing that quarterly sales were down 8.9% year-over-year, adjusted earnings per share fell 51%, and business disruptions and cost headwinds would continue throughout the remainder of the year. On this news, the price of Helen of Troy stock fell 25%, according to the complaint. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. The Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] HOMES.COM LLC: Eggers Sues Over Unsolicited Pre-Recorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT EGGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMES.COM, LLC, a Delaware company, Case No. 8:26-cv-01685 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited pre recorded calls without consent as well as seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. To promote its services and generate business, Homes.com engages in telemarketing campaigns directed at consumers and prospective customers throughout the United States. These campaigns include the use of pre-recorded voice message calls, as per Plaintiff's experience. Consumers have posted complaints online about pre-recorded calls that they received from Homes.com, the suit alleges. Homes.com is a nationwide online real estate marketplace that operates a website and related digital platforms through which consumers search for homes, connect with real estate professionals, obtain property information, and receive real estate-related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com HOST HEALTHCARE: Singh Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dutton Singh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HOST HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Case No. 26CU020709C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03396-JES-VET. In this wage-and-hour class action case, Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Labor Code and seeks allegedly unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff brings eight causes of action: failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to pay correct sick pay rate; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq. Jade T. White, Esq. Maggie G. Baruffi, Esq. GROVE LAW LLP 10000 Washington Blvd., Sixth Floor Culver City, CA 90232 Phone: (310) 853-6020 Email: skroll-rosenbaum@grove.law asbardellati@grove.law jwhite@grove.law mbaruffi@grove.law HV GLOBAL GROUP: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jorge Cazares Rodriguez, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general v. HV GLOBAL GROUP, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU050556C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03395-GPC-JLB. The Complaint seeks to allege nine separately titled causes of action for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide wages when due, and failure to pay sick pay wages. Among other requested relief, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mark D. Kemple, Esq. Jonathan A. Schaub, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310.586.7700 Email: kemplem@gtlaw.com jonathan.schaub@gtlaw.com - and - Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: 310.586.7700 Email: hydes@gtlaw.com - and - Kristen Khair, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 18565 Jamboree Rd., Ste. 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.732.6500 Email: Kristen.khair@gtlaw.com ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Valdez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jorge Valdez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2601044 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03085. On May 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges putative class claims for an alleged: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melis Atalay, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: melis.atalay@ogletree.com - and - Ashley F. Fawcett, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 24th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-492-2500 Facsimile: 212-492-2501 Email: ashley.fawcett@ogletree.com INSTITUTE ON AGING: Lopez Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LYDIA LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTITUTE ON AGING, a California nonprofit corporation; INSTITUTE ON AGING - NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC; a California limited liability company; INSTITUTE ON AGING - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-636370 (Filed April 28, 2026), was removed from the the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 9, 2026. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05497 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff purports to sue on her own behalf and on behalf of "all other persons who have been employed by any Defendants in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee during the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here." The Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide meal periods. The Institute on Aging most commonly refers to the National Institute on Aging, is a premier U.S. government research agency under the National Institutes of Health.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Polishuk, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-1801 E-mail: apolishuk@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00527-CMR (D. Utah, June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information, including personally identifiable information, i.e., names, email addresses, and student-identification numbers; and other sensitive personal data, such as course names, enrollment information, and private messages in connection with a series of data-security events that affected Defendant's Canvas platform in April and May 2026. According to the complaint, data breaches are preventable. They occur due to the lack of attention and resources that companies like Defendant expend on protecting the highly sensitive information they are entrusted with. The Defendant allegedly failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain Personal Information. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the Data Breach in the future. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Personal, Information with which it was entrusted. The Defendant collected Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information and stored it on cloud-based infrastructure that Defendant administers, configures, and controls from its headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, where it made the data-security and incident-response decisions that are at the heart of this action. The Defendant is the developer and operator of Canvas, a cloud-based learning management system used by over 8,000 educational institutions worldwide, including schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States. In the regular course of its business, Defendant collects, processes, and stores the Personal Information of millions of students, instructors, and other Canvas users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. Adam M. Pace, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP, PC 22 East 100 South, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com pace@hatchpc.com - and – E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMINE HERRERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CORPORATION d/b/a UEI COLLEGE, Case No. 8:26-cv-01451 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its students. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the Data Breach). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its students' PII, the suit says. 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, the suit adds. Ms. Herrera, is a natural person and a citizen of Bakersfield, California. She is domiciled in California (where she intends to remain). The Defendant is a private career college that specializes in short-term vocational and technical training, with campuses in California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market Street, Ste 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com INTERVET INC: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Opposition OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palmieri, et al. v. Intervet, Inc. d/b/a Merck Animal Health, Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered an order granting a 15-day extension to the date by which the Defendant is to serve its opposition to the class certification motion, any Rule 702 motions and its expert reports. The Defendant delivers advanced animal health products and import/export services for livestock and companion animals. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=25KrVd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kristofor T. Henning, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 979-3846 Facsimile: (215) 988-4314 E-mail: khenning@mccarter.com ITRON INC: Akre Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Steve Akre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Itron Inc., Case No. 26-00002-02203-32 was removed from the Spokane County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00246 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Itron, Inc. -- https://na.itron.com/ -- is an American technology company that offers products and services for energy and water resource management.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. DeGroot, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7044 Phone: (206) 839-4800 Email: jeffrey.degroot@us.dlapiper.com JACKSON'S FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. JACKSON'S FOOD COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04841 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate website, www.snackjacksons.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 9, 2026 and February 15, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Kettle Chips With Avocado Oil 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 Kettle Chips With Avocado Oil, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: chips, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase Kettle Chips With Avocado Oil. Plaintiff attempted to purchase Kettle Chips With Avocado Oil 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 JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Intercepts Web Users Communications, Coyne Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID COYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03487 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) seeks statutory damages, actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief available under According to the complaint, consumers use JetBlue's digital platforms to search for flights, review fare information, purchase airline tickets, manage reservations, and access other travel-related services. In doing so, consumers communicate sensitive information concerning their travel plans, purchasing decisions, personal information, and online activities. Unknown to Plaintiff and Class Members, JetBlue deploys or permits the deployment of third-party tracking technologies that monitor, record, analyze, and disclose users' communications and interactions with JetBlue's digital platforms to third parties. Through these technologies, third parties receive information regarding users' browsing activity, travel searches, booking activity, device identifiers, internet protocol addresses, session information, and other communications exchanged between consumers and JetBlue. The interception and disclosure of these communications occur contemporaneously with users' interactions with JetBlue's website and mobile application and without the clear and informed consent required by law. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not knowingly authorize JetBlue to permit third parties to intercept, record, analyze, or otherwise receive their communications in the manner alleged herein. By deploying and utilizing these tracking technologies, JetBlue violated Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights, breached obligations arising from its relationship with consumers, and engaged in conduct prohibited by federal and state law, says the suit. Plaintiff David Coyne is a citizen of the State of Nevada and resides in Clark County, Nevada. During the relevant period, in or around July 2025, the Plaintiff visited JetBlue's website to search for, review, and book a flight from Las Vegas, Nevada to Boston, Massachusetts. JetBlue is one of the largest commercial airlines in the United States and conducts a substantial portion of its business through its website (http://www.jetblue.com),and mobile application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com JOHN KRUMME: Minshew Bid to Amend Phase 1 Scheduling Order Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALYN MINSHEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. JOHN W. KRUMME, MD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02467-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend Phase I scheduling order. The Plaintiffs may, of course, proceed on their individual claims. To that end, the parties are directed to submit a joint status report by July 8, 2026, with their proposed schedule for completing discovery on the individual claims. The plaintiffs' motion does not establish any level of diligence in attempting to meet existing deadlines. While it certainly was the plaintiffs' prerogative to delay discovery until after mediation, they took that approach at their own peril. They chose to file this case as a class action and should have been prepared to pursue it as such. Choosing to wait until near the end of class certification discovery to even begin scheduling depositions and serving written discovery does not demonstrate diligence. Therefore, the court denies the motion for lack of good cause. John Krumme is an orthopedic surgeon in Leawood, KS. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dR3Rak at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNNY WAS: Faces Gonzales Suit Over Deceptive Regular Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- GENEVA GONZALES v. JOHNNY WAS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.JOHNNYWAS.COM, Case No. 26STCV18038 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2026) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers regarding the Defendant's product misleading advertisement. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the product based upon the reasonable belief that the price paid reflected a genuine, limited-time discount from the product's ordinary price. The purported "reference price" was not the prevailing market price within the 90 days prior to the date of access, and therefore did not constitute a bona fide former price from which any legitimate discount was being offered, the suit says. The Defendant advertises deceptive and fictitious regular prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on products sold through its website at www.johnnywas.com (the "Website"). The practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference price," and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law, added the suit. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who purchased a product identified below from Defendant's Website while in California. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[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 KAISER FOUNDATION: Ingram Sues Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ingram and Christine Gilliland, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV189449 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 20, 2026), is brought to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: violations of the California ALPR Law; Invasion of Privacy under California's Constitution; Common Law Invasion of Privacy; and Common Law Unjust Enrichment. Flock Group, Inc. is a technology company that specializes in automatic license plate recognition systems, commonly referred to as Automatic License Plate Readers ("ALPRs"). ALPRs are advanced camera systems that can automatically detect and record an individual's "Vehicle Tracking Data," and then aggregate and use that information to track an individual's movements. The term "Vehicle Tracking Data" as used herein means license plate numbers, vehicle characteristics (including any and all data used by Defendant and/or Flock to identify a given vehicle), time-stamped records, and geographic location data reflecting a vehicle's location and movements through areas, along with any other information monitored, captured, collected, and/or aggregated by Flock's ALPRs and ALPR systems. The Defendant installed Flock's ALPRs across many, if not all, of its properties in California, resulting in Plaintiffs and Class Members being tracked by Flock's mass surveillance network. However, Defendant failed to properly and timely inform Plaintiffs and Class Members that their Vehicle Tracking Data was being captured, time-stamped, and recorded, nor that the resulting data being aggregated enabled the long-term tracking of Plaintiffs and Class Members' individual movements. The Defendant's use of the Flock ALPRs is not just an invasion of privacy, but also a violation of the ALPR Law, in that Defendant failed to publicly post the required policy and usage information as required by the statute. As a result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy; emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the surreptitious surveillance of their movements by unknown third parties; and statutory damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited Defendant's Fresno Medical Center. The Defendant is a healthcare organization engaged in the ownership and operation of hospitals and medical facilities throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (772) 783-8436 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com aasciutto@sirillp.com KALSHI INC: Discloses Website Users' Info to Google, James Says --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALSHI, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03556-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons who have accessed and used www.kalshi.com to place a trade or wager pursuant to the the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent. According to the complaint, consumers must provide a dollar amount and interact with Defendant's website to place a bet on a specific outcome. When consumers provide this information to Defendant, they expect that such confidential information and activity will be protected and not disclosed to unknown third parties. Such expectations are based, in part, on the legal protections afforded to such information. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and the Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, Defendant disclosed information regarding each bet made on the Website to Google, LLC and LinkedIn Corporation (together, the Third Parties). These disclosures include communications that contain sensitive and confidential information. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Defendant disclosed his personally identifiable information to Google and LinkedIn, says the suit. The Plaintiff has placed numerous bets on the website in 2026, including as recently as March, 2026. The Defendant develops, owns, and operates the Website, which is available throughout the United States. The Defendant offers a platform to bet on nearly any event imaginable, including political races, sports games, crypto markets, and even climate change, through its Website [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com KALSHIEX LLC: Risch Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adam Risch and Yonatan Gliksman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALSHIEX LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KALSHI INC., a Delaware corporation; KALSHI KLEAR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KALSHI KLEAR INC., a Delaware corporation; KALSHI TRADING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-02390 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 4, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-04734-ER to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Kalshi Inc. -- https://kalshi.com/ -- is a prediction market platform based in Manhattan, New York City, that launched in July 2021.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Novian, Esq. Lauren Woodland, Esq. Cody Fisher, Esq. NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1201 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-1222 Facsimile: (310) 553-0222 Email: matthew@novianlaw.com Laurenw@novianlaw.com fisher@novianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew L. Porter, Esq. Ashley Satterlee, Esq. Katherine Kelly Fell, Esq. Matthew J. Laroche, Esq. Tawfiq S. Rangwala, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 530-5361 Fax: (212) 530-5219 - and - Joshua B. Sterling, Esq. MILBANK LLP 1101 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 835-7535 Fax: (202) 263-7586 - and - Samir Lalit Vora, Esq. MILBANK TWEED HADLEY AND MCCLOY LLP 2029 Century Park East 33rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 386-4000 Fax: (213) 629-5063 Email: svora@milbank.com - and - Sean M. Murphy, Esq. MILBANK TWEED HADLEY AND MCCLOY LLP 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5688 KARL AUTO GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Karl Auto Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Karl Auto Group data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Karl Auto Group Security Incident: What Happened? Karl Auto Group has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to computer systems containing the personal information of current and former customers, employees, and other affiliated individuals. According to a notice posted on Karl Auto Group's website, the breach was discovered on April 4, 2026. An investigation aided by a third-party cybersecurity firm indicated that the unauthorized access occurred prior to March 27. Though the investigation into the Karl Auto Group data breach is ongoing, information confirmed to have been exposed may include names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or other government-issued identification numbers, financial account information, and passport numbers and/or passport images. The types of data compromised vary from person to person. Karl Auto Group sells and services Dodge, Jeep, Chevrolet, GMC, Chrysler, and Ram vehicles through several dealerships in Iowa. What You Can Do After the Karl Auto Group Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Karl Auto Group data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Karl Auto Group to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] KENNEDY MART: Gonzalez Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLEMENTE GONZALEZ, and other similarly-situated individuals v. KENNEDY MART, INC., d/b/a CURRY LEAVES INDIAN CUISINE, SAJI MATHEW, individually, and KRISH UNNY, individually, Case No. 8:26-cv-01680 (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2025 without being adequately compensated. Curry Leaves is an Indian cuisine restaurant located at 204 Westshore Plaza, Tampa, Florida. The individual Defendants are the owners, partners, and/or managers of Curry Leaves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com KNAPHEIDE MANUFACTURING: Conditional Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bell v. The Knapheide Manufacturing Company, Case No. 3:26-cv-03102 (CD. Ill., Filed March 26, 2026), the Hon. Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an order vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set June 18, 2026: The court adopts the deadlines in the Joint [Proposed] Discovery Plan. The following deadlines are set: Initial disclosures due by June 5, 2026; Completion of Phase 1 of Fact Discovery (limited to issues relevant to Plaintiff's forthcoming Motion for Conditional Certification (except, for efficiency and to avoid the need to depose Named Plaintiff multiple times, Defendant may obtain merits discovery on the individual claims of Named Plaintiff)) by December 1, 2026; Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) of expert witnesses who will offer testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, or 705 solely as to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification shall be made by December 12, 2026; Expert witnesses who will present evidence intended solely to contradict or rebut the opinions offered by another party shall be made by January 12, 2027; Plaintiff will file his motion for conditional certification on or before February 1, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Knapheide provides commercial vehicle solutions.[CC] KNOWBE4 INC: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Altonaga entered an order denying the Defendants' opposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court is not persuaded that the arguments raised in the Plaintiffs' reply are sufficiently novel such that the Defendants are entitled to an additional opportunity to respond. True, the Plaintiffs cite some new caselaw and point to different evidence in their reply brief, but they do so to rebut arguments the Defendants raised in their response. KnowBe4 is an integrated platform for security awareness training combined with simulated phishing attacks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqmnID at no extra charge.[CC] KYB AMERICAS: Agrees to 2025 Data Breach Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals whose personal information the February 2025 KYB Americas Corp. data security incident compromised may be eligible to claim up to $5,400 plus credit monitoring from a class action settlement. KYB Americas Corp. agreed to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect personal information during a targeted cyberattack in February 2025. Who can file a claim? The class includes all individuals who meet the following criteria: -- They resided in the United States at the time of the incident. -- The data security incident KYB discovered by in February 2025 compromised their personal information. -- They received notice of the breach from KYB. How much can class members get? Class members may claim one or more of the following cash payment options or select a flat alternative cash payment. The settlement caps all cash payments at $250,000. -- Extraordinary losses: Up to $5,000 for documented losses from identity theft or fraud directly resulting from the incident. Class members must show the breach likely caused the loss, that it is not already covered by other compensation and that they attempted to recover the loss elsewhere. Losses must have occurred between Feb. 11, 2025, and Aug. 26, 2026. -- Ordinary losses: Up to $300 for documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data incident, such as credit monitoring fees, ID replacement costs or postage. Expenses must have occurred between Feb. 11, 2025, and Aug. 26, 2026. -- Compensation for lost time: Up to four hours at $25 per hour (maximum $100) for time spent addressing the incident, such as changing passwords or monitoring accounts. Class members must provide a brief description of their activities. -- Alternative cash payment: In lieu of the above compensation, class members can claim a one-time payment expected to be $75 (may be higher or lower depending on total claims). No documentation is required for this option. If the total value of all cash claims exceeds $250,000, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally (pro rata) so the total does not exceed the cap. How to claim a class action settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form to complete and mail or email to the settlement administrator. They may also request a paper claim form by calling the toll-free number or emailing the settlement administrator. -- Settlement administrator's mailing address: KYB Data Security Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 -- Settlement administrator's mailing address: info@KYBDataSettlement.com -- Settlement administrator's phone number: 833-285-3418 The claim deadline is Aug. 26, 2026. Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? -- Ordinary losses: Class members must submit receipts or other documentation showing out-of-pocket expenses. Self-prepared receipts alone are not sufficient, but class members can use them to supplement other documentation. -- Extraordinary losses: Class members must submit documentation showing the loss, that the data breach likely caused it and that you attempted to recover the loss elsewhere. -- Lost time: Class members must briefly describe the time spent. -- Credit monitoring or alternative cash payment: No documentation required. Class members must select the appropriate option on the claim form. Payout options -- PayPal (provide email address) -- Venmo (provide mobile number) -- Zelle (provide email or mobile number) -- Virtual prepaid card (provide email address) -- Physical check (provide mailing address) Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will cover: -- Settlement administration fees: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $127,500 -- Service award to class representative: $2,500 -- Credit monitoring services: Dependent on number of valid claims for this option -- Payments to eligible class members: Up to $250,000 Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: July 27, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 26, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 25, 2026 When is the KYB Americas Corp. settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed a targeted data security incident occurred on KYB's computer systems in February 2025 that compromised certain files containing personal information. KYB denies any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to resolve the claims and provide benefits to affected individuals. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,400 plus credit monitoring Deadline: August 26, 2026 [GN] LASERSHIP INC: Conditional Cert. Bid in Taboada Suit Due July 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taboada, et al., v. Lasership, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00166 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order as follows: -- Any motion for conditional certification must be filed on or before July 31, 2026, and any motion for class certification must be filed on or before Aug. 31, 2026, in accordance with the assigned judge's individual rules. -- A joint discovery status letter is due to the Court on or before Aug. 18, 2026. -- Fact discovery closes Oct. 15, 2026. -- If the parties engage in expert discovery, initial expert disclosures must be served by Oct. 15, 2026, initial expert reports by Dec. 4, 2026, and rebuttal expert reports by Feb. 15, 2027. -- Expert discovery closes March 15, 2027. -- Dispositive motion practice must commence on or before April 15, 2027, or if such motion practice does not commence, the proposed JPTO must be filed on or before May 14, 2027, in accordance with the assigned judge's individual rules. -- The parties are encouraged to pursue mediation through the Court-annexed mediation program. The parties may request such a referral to the program at any time by filing a joint request on ECF. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). LaserShip is a major American last-mile e-commerce delivery company.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: Court Stays All Deadlines for Parties to Mediate --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES OTTLEY, RUTH FLORES, AND SANDRO PEREZ HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Case No. 1:24-cv-02345-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Trenga entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to stay all deadlines to allow the Parties to mediate. 1. All deadlines and all discovery other than discovery are stayed through July 29, 2026, the date of the Parties' mediation. 2. The Defendant will produce scan data for the New Jersey and Virginia putative class members, and will also produce hire and termination dates for the collective and for Virgina and New Jersey putative class members, to the extent that such data exists. Additionally, on June 9, 2026, the Defendant will make a record of non-appearance for any Discovery Plaintiff whose deposition was noticed pursuant to the Court's motion to compel and who does not appear for deposition on June 9, 2026. 3. The Parties shall file a joint status report on July 31, 2026, to advise the Court of the status of their settlement efforts. 4. Absent settlement, fact discovery will close on Aug. 31, 2026, and expert discovery will close on Oct. 30, 2026. LaserShip is a major last-mile e-commerce delivery and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5e9R9 at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN PROPERTY: Gomez Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY COMMERCIAL, INC., LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY COMMERCIAL LLC., LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY COMMERCIAL SERVICE ENTERPRISES LLC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV17918 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 5, 2026) contends that the Defendants failed to provide employment records, pay overtime and double time, and to provide rest and meal periods in violation of California Labor Code. The aggrieved employees worked for all of the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees. The Lincoln offers commercial real estate services and investment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Joseph C. Rocha, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 N Brand Blvd Ste 1015 Glendale, CA 91203-1396 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com LOVESAC CO: Seeks Dismissal of Nguyen SAC ----------------------------------------- Lovesac Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action complaint related to the company's pricing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California generally alleging that it falsely advertised discounts on certain products. Said complaint captioned "Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company," was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to said court seeking, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the company's sales practices, and attorney's fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed the plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Its motion to dismiss the complaint is pending a decision by the court. Lovesac Co is a furniture retailer known for its modular sectional couches and related home furnishings, selling primarily through its showrooms and online channels across the United States. The company focuses on configurable, durable products positioned in the premium home furniture market. LUXI GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jenkins Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LUXI GROUP, LLC and UNITED TIME GROUP, LLC, d/b/a ASHFORD.COM, Case No. 1:26-cv-04817 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the commercial website located at www.ashford.com in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons who rely on screen-reading software to access the internet pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, for blind and visually impaired consumers, accessible websites are not a convenience -- they are a necessity. Screen-reading software such as NonVisual Desktop Access and Job Access With Speech) convert on-screen text and navigational elements into audible speech or Braille output, enabling blind users to navigate, evaluate products, and transact on commercial websites. When a website's code is not built or maintained in conformance with established accessibility standards -- specifically the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines promulgated by the World Wide Web Consortium -- screen-reading software fails to function properly, and blind users are denied equal access to the information and commercial opportunities the website provides. Ashford.com is one of the largest and most established discount retailers of authentic brand-name luxury watches and sunglasses in the United States, operating since the mid-1990s and offering genuine products at prices reported to be forty to eighty percent below manufacturer suggested retail prices ("MSRP"). Ashford.com carries over watch and accessory brands, including Bulova, Citizen, Hamilton, Invicta, Kenneth Cole, Luminox, Maurice Lacroix, Mido, Movado, Orient, Technomarine, and Tissot, among others.[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 MAELYS COSMETICS USA: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maelys Cosmetics USA, Inc. The case is styled as Yesenia Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maelys Cosmetics USA, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-03077 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maelys Cosmetics USA Inc. -- https://www.maelyscosmetics.com/ -- provides personal care products. The Company offers creams, masks, and curves with body shaping products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: pamela@kazlg.com MAMMA MIA: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MAMMA MIA COVERS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01017-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the Local Rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed the plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Defendant sells high-quality, stretchable slipcovers sourced from the Italian manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p7bUK4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MCBS LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Neff Suit Due May 6, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY NEFF; CARLOS RIVERA; and KELLY McCOLLUM, v. MCBS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00235-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Court entered an order setting the following revised case deadlines: Last day for filing motions to Jan. 6, 2027 amend or add partieS Motion for class certification May 6, 2027 The Defendant's response to motion for July 5, 2027 class certification The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Aug. 4, 2027 motion for class certification All provisions of the prior Scheduling Order not revised herein shall remain in full force and effect. The Defendant is a Georgia-based medical billing and practice management firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9l2EfM at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3047: Panel Vacates Conditional Transfer Order No. 73 --------------------------------------------------------- In the MDL, "In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3047, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, vacates the conditional transfer order of "Doe, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 1:26-00576 (D. Colo.) Plaintiffs moved to vacate the panel's order (CTO-73) conditionally transferring their action to aforementioned MDL, alternatively, they asked the panel to separate and remand their claims against defendant Lyft, Inc. to the District of Colorado. Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram LLC oppose the motion to vacate, and Lyft opposes the alternative request to separate and remand the claims against it. MDL No. 3047 involves factual questions arising from allegations that defendants' social media platforms are designed to maximize user screen time, which can encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. Plaintiffs allege defendants were aware, but failed to warn the public, that their platforms were harmful to minors. Actions share questions of fact concerning whether social media platforms encourage addictive behavior, fail to verify users' ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content. Plaintiffs allege that the Instagram platform connected the thirteen-year old minor plaintiff with an adult sex offender, who lured her to his apartment, where he assaulted her. They further allege that the assailant ordered Lyft rides using a fake account to transport the minor plaintiff to and from his apartment, in violation of Lyft's policy to prohibit rides for unaccompanied minors. Plaintiffs assert that Meta falsely promised to prohibit sex offenders and imposter accounts from its platform and failed to warn of the risk of sexual predators. They also allege that Lyft did not prevent fake rider accounts and did not train its drivers or enforce its policy against transporting unaccompanied minors. Initially, the panel deemed separation and remand of the claims against Lyft to be appropriate, claims appear indivisible, transfer of them may be impractical. Plaintiffs have brought separate claims against Lyft and Meta, but plaintiffs allege that the conduct of each resulted in the minor plaintiff being connected with, transported to, and ultimately assaulted by an adult sexual predator. In addition to allegations that Instagram connected the minor plaintiff with a predator and failed to warn of that risk, plaintiffs allege that Meta deliberately designed addictive products that it knew caused and increased mental health problems in children, making them more susceptible to grooming. In moving to vacate, plaintiffs acknowledge the overlap and argue that their allegations that Instagram was intentionally designed to be addictive to adolescents are "secondary," and they do not allege that the minor plaintiff herself was addicted to Instagram. They argue that the minor plaintiff's injury arises not from personal injury caused by social media addiction, but from a sexual assault facilitated by defendants. They contend that Meta's liability stems from its false promises to prohibit sex offenders and imposter accounts from its platform, its failure to design its platform to meet those promises, and its failure to warn of the risk of sexual predators. In these circumstances, allegations that Instagram is designed to be addictive to minors are too peripheral to the alleged resulting injury to warrant inclusion in the MDL. There are, without doubt, some allegations that overlap with those in the MDL, but the core allegations that Meta and Lyft are responsible for the minor plaintiff's assault by an adult sexual predator because Meta recommended the minor plaintiff connect with an adult predator and failed to prevent fake accounts and Lyft transported the minor plaintiff to and from the location of the assault. Lyft is not named in any MDL No. 3047 cases. Transfer of said action would inject unrelated claims and additional parties into the litigation and further complicate an already complex MDL, which involves multiple platform defendants and several categories of plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2026 order is available at https://tinyurl.com/24yd55mp MDS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Bartz Suit Over Wage & Hours Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Bartz, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. MDS Communications Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-04134-MTL (D. Ariz., June 10, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and/or former Professional Fundraisers, Call Center Representatives, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties, as employees of MDS to recover for MDS's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Wisconsin wage and hours laws. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. Regardless of whether Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek totaling under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours, or a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, the Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of his job duties as a PF. The Defendant never compensated Plaintiff for this necessary time worked off-the-clock. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a PF from 2013 until January 2018 at Defendant's call center in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and again from June 2025 until September 2025, remotely. The Defendant provides a complete array of telephone fundraising services for non-profit-organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4025 E-mail: jrusch@sommerspc.com MINDLANCE INC: Cheatum Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Laneice D. Cheatum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. MINDLANCE, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a mutual legal reserve company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV13642 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06087. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Violations of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diana Lerma, Esq. Sawyer C. Stephens, Esq. Jonathan Feldman-Greene, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Diana.Lerma@jacksonlewis.com sawyer.stephens@jacksonlewis.com Jonathan.FeldmanGreene@jacksonlewis.com MONROE CAPITAL: Arbitration Granted for Maryland Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Justin Keller, Hailey Kardux, Patricia Bandy, Alexei Mack, and Richard Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Monroe Capital Corporation, Monroe Capital BDC Advisors, LLC, and Monroe Capital Management Advisors, LLC, Defendants, Civil Case No. SAG-25-02474 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to replead. he plaintiffs are Maryland consumers Keller, Kardux, and Riley; Virginia consumer Mack; and North Carolina consumer Bandy. They executed Homeowner Benefit Agreements (HBAs) with MV Realty PBC, LLC, a real estate brokerage that offered homeowners in financial distress a small promotional cash payment in exchange for an extremely high-interest secured loan, a lien-like interest in their property, and a 40-year right to list the property for sale. The defendant, Monroe Capital Corporation and its affiliates, served as the principal financier of MV Realty's scheme, profiting from termination fees and inflated brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs described the relationship between Monroe and MV Realty as a joint association-in-fact enterprise that combined deceptive practices, unlawful debt collection, and exclusionary control of the brokerage market to monetize homeowners' equity through 40-year encumbrances. On the motion to compel arbitration, the court first examined whether valid arbitration agreements existed. As to plaintiff Bandy, the North Carolina Superior Court had entered a Consent Judgment establishing that the HBAs are wholly unenforceable against North Carolina consumers and that MV Realty possessed no rights or interests arising out of any HBA entered with North Carolina consumers. The court held that it would be patently inequitable to allow a non-signatory to enforce provisions of a wholly unenforceable agreement, and therefore denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration as to Bandy. As to plaintiff Mack of Virginia, neither party possessed a complete copy of his signed HBA. The court deferred the motion and ordered limited, targeted discovery to obtain that agreement before ruling. As to Maryland plaintiffs Keller, Kardux, and Riley, the court found that valid arbitration agreements had been formed. The court applied the equitable estoppel doctrine, under which a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration clause when the signatory's claims make reference to or presume the existence of the written agreement, and when the signatory raises allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatory and a signatory. Both conditions were satisfied: the Maryland plaintiffs' claims made frequent reference to and presumed the existence of the HBAs, and the entire basis of the claims against Monroe was substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by Monroe and MV Realty. The Maryland HBAs also contained broad delegation clauses referring questions of validity and arbitrability to the arbitrator. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration as to Keller, Kardux, and Riley. On the motion to dismiss, the court granted the defendant's motion because the amended complaint grossly exceeded the court's 40-page limitation under Local Rule 103.1(d), running 29 pages over the limit due in part to unnecessary inclusions such as citations to judicial opinions and news pieces unrelated to providing a short and plain statement of the claim. Plaintiffs were afforded 30 days' leave to file a Second Amended Complaint complying with the page limitation. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=70I2xS from PacerMonitor.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Sues Over Negligence of Roundup Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cindy Snyder, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jeffrey Snyder v. MONSANTO COMPANY; Case No. 3:26-cv-01131-SB (D. Ore., June 4, 2026), is brought against Defendant for her development of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma ("NHL") 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/or 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 Plaintiff (and countless others). Jeffrey Snyder was exposed to Monsanto's Roundup products and developed serious personal injuries, including NHL, as a result. Jeffrey Snyder regularly used Roundup and/or other Monsanto glyphosate-containing products ("Roundup") for many years in Oregon. On June 2023, Jeffrey Snyder was diagnosed with NHL in Oregon. His NHL was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's wrongful conduct. On January 30, 2025, Jeffrey Snyder died as a direct result of his NHL caused by his use of Roundup. As a direct and proximate result of these injuries, Jeffrey Snyder and Plaintiff incurred medical expenses, endured pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, incurred and will continue to incur loss of consortium, and were otherwise been damaged in a personal and pecuniary nature. The Plaintiff contends Defendant is liable for these damages and requests an economic, compensatory, and punitive damages as well as a trial by jury, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. Monsanto was engaged in the business of manufacturing, formulating, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing Roundup.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN | RUBIN PLLP 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-501-4446 Fax: 206-623-0794 Email: kfriedman@friedmanrubin.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Student Athlete Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that The National Collegiate Athletic Association is facing a new proposed class action lawsuit stemming from its multibillion-dollar settlement that allowed athletes to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness. Here are the details: -- The lawsuit was filed in federal court in California on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, on behalf of football and basketball players in the NCAA's Division 1, the top tier for college sports. -- The plaintiffs allege the ⁠NCAA and its member athletic conferences maintained some restrictions on student athlete compensation as part of the settlement, violating laws in California and 16 other states that prohibit restrictions on payments made to athletes for their name, image and likeness (NIL). California's law was enacted in 2019 as the first NIL statute in the country, the lawsuit said. -- The NCAA settlement, which won court approval last year, opened a wider door to NIL payments but ⁠imposed new restrictions. The new lawsuit said it does not seek to upend the settlement but is challenging certain aspects, including an annual cap limiting how much schools can pay student athletes. Several groups are separately challenging the settlement in the ⁠San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. -- Talanoa Ili, a plaintiff in the new case, "is seeking to help ensure that he and his teammates, and ⁠other similarly situated athletes, are free to earn the NIL income that a competitive market would generate," the complaint said. -- The lawsuit ⁠estimated potentially thousands of student athlete class members. -- The NCAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The organization has denied any wrongdoing as part of earlier settlements. [GN] NATIONAL REPUBLICAN: Bailey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ DALE LEE BAILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:26-cv-02026 (W.D. Wash., June 10, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes political spam by sending unsolicited emails in violation of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. According to the complaint, over the past few years, political spam has become a massive problem in the U.S. The spam app Robokiller reports that in 2023, Americans received 253 million political text messages. Bailey is the sole user of the cell phone number 360-220-8992. This is Bailey's only phone number. NRCC "is a political committee devoted to increasing the number of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Alvord, Esq. Reid Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 450 Alaskan Way S Suite 200 #1823 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (385) 440-4127 E-mail: thomas@thehqfirm.com reid.hudson@thehqfirm.com NAVAN INC: Securities Class Action Filed over SEC Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- Navan Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2026, that a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the company, its directors, and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making materially false and misleading statements about the company's sales and marketing expenses in its IPO offering documents. Navan Inc. is a business travel and expense management company that provides a cloud-based platform integrating travel booking, corporate card, and expense management solutions for enterprises worldwide. The company aims to streamline corporate travel and spend through automation, real-time data, and integrated financial controls. NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Unconstitutional Search Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------------- D.P., the parent and natural guardian of JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES; REBECCA JONES GASTON, Commissioner of ACS, in her official capacity; NANCY GINSBURG, Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Youth and Family Justice of ACS, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:26-cv-04745-JHR (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is class action suit brought to stop ACS's unconstitutional search procedures. The Plaintiffs seek a class-wide judgment declaring ACS's search policy and procedures unconstitutional. They also seek a class-wide injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing these procedures and directing Defendants to implement all necessary measures to ensure these procedures are not continued. The lawsuit further seeks damages for the many children ACS has unlawfully searched. The Plaintiffs seek, on a class-wide basis and for themselves individually, compensatory damages commensurate with the injuries suffered, in amounts determined at trial, and the costs and expenses of this action.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua S. Moskovitz, Esq. Rob Rickner, Esq. RICKNER MOSKOVITZ LLP 14 Wall Street, Suite 4C New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-6506 E-mail: Josh@RMcivilrights.com Rob@RMcivilrights.com NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER: Class Cert Bd Referred to Mag. Judge Scanlon In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xia et al v. New Yung Wah Carrier LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04475 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification with respect to those claims only, is referred to Magistrate Judge Scanlon for a report and recommendation as to her findings. As the Court has found that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege standing to support their wage-notice and wage-statement claims at this stage of the litigation, The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). New Yung Wah is an active carrier in New York.[CC] NOMAD TRANSIT: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Faison Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- COURT FAISON, on behalf of himself and the putative Class Members v. NOMAD TRANSIT LLC and VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-06165 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) challenges the Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully misclassifying its "drivers" as independent contractors exempt from the provisions of California wage and hour laws. Despite classifying their drivers as "independent contractors," the Defendants treat Plaintiff and putative Class Members as employees. As a result of its unlawful misclassification policy and practice, the Defendants: (1) fail to pay Plaintiff and putative Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked; (2) fail to pay Plaintiff and putative Class Members overtime wages; and (3) fail to provide or make available to Plaintiff and putative Class Members the meal periods to which they are entitled by law, and fail to pay premium compensation payment for non- As a result of the misclassification and the violations stated herein, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and putative Class Members, seeks compensation, damages, penalties, and interest to the full extent permitted by the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendants as a driver or "driver partner." The Plaintiff started working for Defendants in December 2025. The Plaintiff works for Defendants in Ontario, California. Via provides the core ride-matching software that Plaintiff and Class Members are required to utilize, while Defendant Nomad Transit LLC serves as the local operating entity that contracts with clients and helps effectuate the Defendants' joint microtransit services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, 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 NORTH BAKERSFIELD IMPORTS: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Bakersfield Imports, LLC. The case is styled as Paula Ann Estrada, on behalf of others similarly situated v. North Bakersfield Imports, LLC doing business as North Bakersfield Toyota, Case No. 26CUB02165 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." North Bakersfield Imports, LLC doing business as North Bakersfield Toyota -- https://www.northbakersfieldtoyota.com/ -- offers new and used auto sales, parts sales, and automotive repair service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas Agle, Esq. Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law j.agle@d.law NORTH-EAST DECK: Lipinski Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LIPINSKI and JOHN TIBOLLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTH-EAST DECK & STEEL SUPPLY, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01467-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the following class: "All current and former hourly wage employees who worked on prevailing wage contracts for North-East Deck & Steel Supply, LLC in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from March 19, 2022, to the Present (the "Class"); (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the certified Class; and (3) appointing Edelson Lechtzin LLP as Class Counsel. North-East is a locally and family-owned steel fabrication shop. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cihopX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com alapat@edelson-law.com OREGON: Faces Class Suit to End Solitary Confinement in Prisons --------------------------------------------------------------- Conrad Wilson of OPB reports that in recent years, the state Department of Corrections' use of disciplinary segregation has trended upward, according to data. Several prisoners say the agency is violating Oregon's Constitution. More than half the time Dominique Jenkins-Millage has spent in prison, he's been in some form of solitary confinement. The 29 year-old began serving his sentence in August. Before prison, Jenkins-Millage said his life was difficult. He's been shot and experienced homelessness. But his current situation, he said, marks the lowest point of his life. "I would rather take a bullet than go through this; this sucks," Jenkins-Millage said. "I would rather be homeless outside where I have a chance to better myself or better my situation rather than be stuck in a box like an animal." Jenkins-Millage is part of a group of prisoners currently in solitary confinement who are challenging the conditions of their incarceration. In a class-action lawsuit filed Thursday, June 11, in Marion County Circuit Court, they argue the state's prison system is violating the Oregon Constitution, which prohibits the "harsh, degrading, or dehumanizing treatment of prisoners." "Across the state, the Oregon Department of Corrections holds hundreds of people in solitary confinement under brutal conditions that inflict significant physical and psychological harm," according to the lawsuit. Oregon holds adults in custody inside windowless rooms smaller than a parking space for 23 or 24 hours per day, the lawsuit alleges. Not only are prisoners "generally forbidden" from going outside, they "rarely even see sunlight." The Oregon Department of Corrections declined to comment on the allegations, citing the pending lawsuit. In a statement, a spokesperson said the agency is committed "to safe, secure, and humane operations for adults in custody, staff, and the communities we serve." Data published by the agency shows a recent upward trend of adults in custody held inside Disciplinary Segregation Units. The most current data shows as of May 1, 561 prisoners were held in those units, nearly the highest during the past two years. Disciplinary segregation is limited to 90 consecutive days, under state administrative rules. "Oregon has certainly become an outlier in the use of disciplinary solitary confinement, which in some ways is the most punitive," said Ben Haile, an attorney with the Oregon Justice Resource Center, one of the legal nonprofits bringing the lawsuit. In 2021, Washington state ended the use of punitive solitary confinement. Nevada and Idaho each have 15 day limits of disciplinary segregation; California has a similar limit. "However, that can be a little bit deceiving because solitary confinement comes by many names and many euphemisms," Haile explained. "Often within the prison there's a shuttling from one designation to another." In Oregon, adults in custody are also placed in Administrative Segregation for safety purposes, including during misconduct investigations, or assigned to Intensive Management Units, which last at least five months. Both are forms of solitary confinement, according to Haile. Combined, the practices playing out in Oregon's prison are at odds with the messages from state officials about treating adults in person with dignity, said Jacob Hutt, an attorney with the Prison Law Office, which is also bringing the litigation. "What makes Oregon unique, in a way, is that it positions itself as a progressive leader on criminal justice issues," Hutt said. "So all of these factors make it ironic and surprising that you're finding these brutal and really extensive solitary confinement practices in Oregon." Jenkins-Millage received a 26-month sentence after pleading to third degree robbery charges. In January, he got into a fight at the Oregon State Penitentiary with the person who killed his cousin, according to Jenkins-Millage. After that, he was put into a disciplinary segregation unit. "If I can be totally honest, I imagine it's because I punched a dude and his friend saw me punching him then he punched me then my friend punched the dude who punched me," Jenkins-Millage said. "It kind of had a domino effect and I can understand it looked like I was the dude who pushed the first domino." In April, Jenkins-Millage was transferred from Salem to the Snake River Correctional Institution near the Oregon-Idaho border. He went from disciplinary segregation to an Intensive Management Unit. His interactions are largely limited to medical staff or correctional officers. Others on the same unit sometimes communicate by shouting through the slot in their cell door. "It's definitely impacted my mental health," he said. "This is the lowest point in my life. On top of being in prison, being in solitary confinement just makes it worse." He described it as a "demented torture," being "confined to a box" for months: "It's insanity to me." Jenkins-Millage said he hopes the lawsuit will bring change, even if he won't benefit from it. "When we made the decision to do whatever put us in prison," he said, "we didn't stop being humans." [GN] OSTERIA LAGUNA: Canalizo Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN CANALIZO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. OSTERIA LAGUNA LLC, and MADDALENA CINQUE, Case No. 1:26-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants paid Plaintiff for his hours worked at the New York foodservice workers' minimum wage, which is lower than the full New York minimum wage. However, the Defendants were not entitled to pay Plaintiff pursuant to the foodservice workers' minimum wage because they did not give Plaintiff notice of the tip credit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and other bussers were regularly required to perform deliveries for When delivery customers left tips for delivery people through the app they used to order their food, Defendants did not distribute such tips to the delivery people in their entirety. The Plaintiff did not receive upon hire or at any later point a notice and acknowledgment of pay rate in Spanish -- his primary language -- as required by NYLL. Had Plaintiff been provided accurate information with respect to the full minimum wage and the tip credit being applied to his wage and received a notice and acknowledgment of pay rate, he would have asserted his rights under the NYLL at an earlier time, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked as a busser for Defendants. Osteria owns and operates Osteria Laguna restaurant in midtown Manhattan. Maddalena Cinque owns and operates Osteria Laguna. Ms. Cinque actively manages the restaurant and its employees on a day-to-day basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 OVINTIV INC: Underpays Gas, Oil Royalties, Monarch Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MONARCH MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. OVINTIV INC. and OVINTIV USA INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01390-D (W.D. Okla., June 12, 2026) claims against Ovintiv concerning actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, through improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay royalties as required by the applicable agreements and Oklahoma law. Prior to the April 2026 sale of its Oklahoma assets, Ovintiv was in the business of producing and marketing natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, from oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma in which the Class members hold royalty interests. The acts charged in this Complaint as having been done by Ovintiv were authorized, ordered, or done by its officers, agents, affiliates, employees, or representatives, while actively engaged in the conduct or management of Ovintiv's business or affairs, and within the scope of their employment or agency with Ovintiv, the suit says. OVINTIV INC. is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com PERPETUA RESOURCES: Barnes Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Perpetua Resources Corp. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2026, that on June 3, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted the motion to dismiss filed by the company and the other defendants in the previously disclosed putative securities class action, "Barnes et al. v. Perpetua Resources Corp. et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-00160. The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint on or before July 3, 2026. Perpetua Resources Corp. is a mineral exploration and development company focused on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho. The company aims to responsibly develop one of the largest known gold and antimony deposits in the United States. PICS NV: Faces Firstfire Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- FIRSTFIRE GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PICS N.V., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04793 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a securities class action seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased PicS Class A common stock in and/or traceable to PicS' January 30, 2026 initial public offering (IPO) against PicS, the PicS officers and directors responsible for the offering, the IPO underwriters, and controlling persons of PicS. In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 22.9 million shares of Class A common stock to the public at $19 per share, generating gross proceeds of $434.3 million. By June 4, 2026, the price of the PicS Class A common stock sold in the IPO fell to a low of less than $9 per share, more than 50% below the IPO price, damaging PicS investors, says the suit. Plaintiff FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC purchased PicS Class A common stock directly in and traceable to the Offering Documents, as reflected in the attached Certification incorporated herein by reference, and has been damaged thereby. PicS was incorporated in December 2023 as a private limited liability company under Dutch law, with its corporate seat in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and with the name Picpay Holdings Netherlands B.V. In connection with the IPO, Picpay Holdings Netherlands B.V. was converted to a public limited liability company under Dutch law with the name PicS N.V. The Company is headquartered in São Paulo, Brazil, and its Class A common stock trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "PICS." Defendant Eduardo Chedid Simoes has been PicS' Chief Executive Officer (CEO) since 2024 and serves as an Executive Director on the Company's Board of Directors. The Defendants include EDUARDO CHEDID SIMOES, RODRIGO LUIS ROSA COUTO, JOSE ANTONIO BATISTA COSTA, EDUARDO CRUZ, JACKSON RICARDO GOMES, MARCIO ANTONIO TEIXEIRA LINARES, MAURICIO COSTA DE MOURA, WILLIAM RODNEY PRUETT, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., BofA SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., WR SECURITIES, LLC, BANCO BRADESCO BBI S.A., BB SECURITIES LIMITED, BANCO BTG PACTUAL S.A., XP INVESTIMENTOS CORRETORA DE CAMBIO, TITULOS E VALORES MOBILIARIOS S.A., FTP SECURITIES LLC, J&F PARTICIPACOES S.A., JOESLEY MENDONCA BATISTA, and WESLEY MENDONCA BATISTA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com PINCHME.COM INC: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PINCHme.com, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PINCHme.com, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03389-AGS-GC (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. PINCHme.com Inc. -- https://www.pinchme.com/ -- provides advertising services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vin Roy Venkatesh, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Email: vv@plgdamage.com PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE: Powell Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., et al. The case is styled as April Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03405-AGS-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Plaza Home Mortgage -- https://www.plazahomemortgage.com/ -- offers conventional fixed rate, conventional ARM, FHA, and VA loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mistler Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Mistler, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Case No. CV2026-0788 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-02366. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she bought various P&G brand deodorants with labels that stated they were either "Unscented" or "Free & Sensitive." She alleges these labels were misleading because the products contained added fragrance and she thus "paid more for the Unscented Deodorants, and would only have been willing to pay less, or unwilling to purchase them at all, absent the false and misleading labeling complained of herein." Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; alleged violations of California's False Advertising Law; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310.586.7700 Facsimile: 310.586.7800 Email: herringtonr@gtlaw.com PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS: McClain Sues Over Automobile Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TORILYNN MCCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-14199 (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2026) is a class action complaint for damages and class wide declaratory relief. According to the complaint, Policyholder's claims in this action arise from two different aspects of her total loss automobile insurance claim. Initially, the Plaintiff brings a first party bad faith claim under sections 624.155 and 626.9541(1)(i)3a, Florida Statutes arising from Progressive's failure to adopt and implement standards for the proper investigation of the claim she made under her Progressive insurance policy following the total loss of her insured automobile. Policyholder's remaining claims arise from Progressive's assertion of an invalid subrogation lien against her recovery from the driver who caused the accident (the "at-fault driver") arising from the accident that rendered her insured vehicle a total loss and also caused her to sustain injuries and damages. Relatedly, Progressive tortiously interfered in the contract that the at-fault driver's insurance company and policyholder formed for purposes of settling Policyholder's damages claims. Lastly, Policyholder asserts a related claim in this action for class-wide declaratory relief establishing that Progressive has an affirmative obligation under section 626.9541(1)(i)3.a (which is incorporated into the relevant insurance policy by operation of law), to determine whether its policyholders have been fully reimbursed before asserting a subrogation lien on any damages recovery from a third party. Progressive Express Insurance Company is a subsidiary of the Progressive Corporation, primarily offering commercial auto and specialized vehicle coverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Golant Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY N. GOLANT, P.A. 2835 NW Executive Center Dr. Ste. 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431-8510 Telephone: (954) 942-5270 Facsimile: (954) 942-5272 E-mail: Jgolant@jeffreygolantlaw.com RCFHP INC: Morocho Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN RENE MOROCHO, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, v. R.C.F.H.P. INC., CAMBRIDGE REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC, ENTERPRISE GROUP OF NEW YORK LLC, TRS CGL KRL PTRZTL FRI PARTNERS LLC, and ROBERT GALPERN and LOUIS GALPERN, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-05008 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. In March 2023, Plaintiff, Ivan Rene Morocho, was hired by Defendants to work as a handyman at various apartment buildings in New York City. Mr. Morocho, worked for the Defendants until May 27, 2026. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid by check. He was paid straight time, for less hours than he actually worked, and without overtime compensation. The Defendants' business is the leasing of apartments to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com REPUBLIC REIGN: Alberti Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA ALBERTI, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC REIGN, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, d/b/a REPUBLIC GARDEN AND LOUNGE, Case No. 2:26-cv-02277-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2026) contends that the Defendant employed Bartenders and failed to pay individuals applicable minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant committed federal wage violations because it: (1) compensated Plaintiff and all other Bartenders at a reduced sub-minimum wage of $2.13 per hour but failed to provide them with the statutorily required notice of its intent to rely upon a tip credit; (2) required Plaintiff and all other Bartenders to participate in an unlawful tip pool that included managers and supervisors who exercised general operational control; (3) unlawfully retained a portion of Bartenders' earned tips by assessing a Credit Card Tip Fee that was deducted directly from Bartenders' tip distributions before those distributions were received by Bartenders; (4) required Plaintiff and all other Bartenders to perform non- tip-producing and directly supporting duties exceeding 20% of their workweek while paying a tip-credit wage; (5) required Plaintiff to complete an unpaid six-hour audition shift before receiving a formal offer of employment; and (6) terminated Plaintiff after she submitted a verbal complaint objecting to the unlawful tip-sharing arrangement, in direct violation of the FLSA's anti-retaliation provisions. The Plaintiff seeks certification of four (4) collectives under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for violations of the FLSA as follows: Bartender Tip Credit Notice Collective: All Bartenders who worked for Defendant at Republic Garden and Lounge in South Carolina during the previous three (3) years who were paid a direct cash wage of less than minimum wage. Bartender Tip Pool Collective: All Bartenders who worked for Defendant at Republic Garden and Lounge in South Carolina during the previous three (3) years who were required to share any portion of their tips with managers or supervisors. Bartender Credit Card Tip Fee Collective: All Bartenders who worked for Defendant at Republic Garden and Lounge in South Carolina during the previous three (3) years whose tip distributions were subject to a Credit Card Tip Fee or similar house deduction retained by Defendant. Bartender 80/20 Collective: All Bartenders who worked for Defendant at Republic Garden and Lounge in South Carolina during the previous three (3) years who were paid a tip-credit wage and required to perform non-tip producing or directly supporting duties exceeding 20% of their workweek. The Defendant owns and operates Republic Garden and Lounge, located at 462 King Street, Charleston, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Mingledorff, Esq. MINGLEDORFF LAW GROUP, LLC 100 Coastal Drive, Suite 210 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 377-8295 E-mail: chris@mlegalteam.com ROBLOX CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) faces a securities class action lawsuit after its April 30, 2026 Q1 2026 report indicating a surprisingly large sequential decline in daily active users ("DAUs") tempered by its age-check rollout. The news drove the price of Roblox shares down $10.13 (-18%) the next trading day and erased over $6.7 billion from the company's market capitalization. The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Roblox common stock between October 30, 2025 and April 30, 2026. National shareholder rights firm Hagens Berman is investigating the legal claims that Roblox and its co-defendants violated the federal securities laws. The firm encourages Roblox investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Oct. 30, 2025 - Apr. 30, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 7, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rblx Contact the Firm Now: RBLX@hbsslaw.com (844) 916-0895 Roblox Corporation (RBLX) Securities Class Action: The primary focus of the litigation is on the propriety of Roblox's disclosures about the impact on its business and prospects of the age-check verification rollout aimed at increasing safety within certain social features on its platform. The rollout began in November 2025. Throughout the Class Period, Roblox has characterized its rollout as the "gold standard" intended to be implemented with "no friction." The company has also touted its high year-over-year DAU growth and related revenue and bookings growth. As recently as February 5, 2026, during Roblox's Q4 2025 earnings call, CEO David Baszucki responded to an analyst's question about additional detail about the age-check rollout, assuring investors that "[w]e're very excited and proud of the way our age verification rollout has gone" and "we found so many other opportunities for optimization that I'm very pleased and happy about the way the rollout has gone." The complaint alleges that Roblox made false and misleading statements while failing to disclose important information to investors about the true state of the company's growth potential. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Roblox would see significant growth slowdown as enrollments in its age-check rollout would quickly taper, compounding the resulting slowdown in on-line platform communication and resulting in app store rating reductions and a swift reduction in organic growth. The truth entered the market on April 30, 2026. That day, Roblox reported its Q1 2026 financial results, revealed a steep deceleration in year-over-year and sequential DAU growth, slashed its 2026 revenue guidance (reflecting ongoing shrinkage in DAU growth), and severely cut its 2026 bookings growth midpoint from 24% to just 10%. The company blamed its adverse situation on just 51% of Roblox global DAUs having age checked and further revealed that "as a result of age check [. . .] we have seen a reduction in app store ratings, and we believe this may be contributing to a reduction in organic sign-ups that typically flow from app stores." Roblox also said its lowered prospects are the result of "continued friction" resulting from the age-check rollout. "We're focused on when Roblox and its management knew of the adverse consequences of the age-check rollout and whether they intentionally misled investors it," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. If you invested in Roblox and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that will assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses now. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Roblox should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RBLX@hbsslaw.com About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Nohle's Reply Remains Due by June 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nohle, et al., v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01688 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order that the Plaintiff's Reply remains due by June 19, 2026. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Roto-Rooter provides plumbing repair and maintenance services.[CC] SACTO LOGISTICS INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacto Logistics, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Roshan Singh, Sukhrajdeep Singh, Yadbir Singh, Baljinder Singh, Gurkirat Singh, Sham Sharma, Abhishek Nonamegiven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees v. Sacto Logistics, Inc., DHRUP GOSAI, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV013560 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sacto Logistics Inc. is an Elk Grove, CA based company incorporated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alishan Jadhavji, Esq. JADHAVJI LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2408 34th St, Unit 3 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2139 Phone: 818-371-1399 Fax: 818-371-1399 Email: alishan@tjflegal.com SAFEWAY INC: Wilson Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSON, individually and for others similarly situated, v. SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00478-MTK (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mustafa Kasubhai entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and -- denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff here seeks leave to amend not because of defects in the original pleading, but because of Wilson's conduct in failing to appear for his deposition. Both cases cited by the Defendant in support of its proposed conditions deal with discovery motions and not motions for leave to amend. The Court declines to impose the Defendant's conditions because such relief is more appropriately sought under the discovery rules and in a separately stated motion. On March 20, 2025, Wilson filed a class action on behalf of himself and Defendant's other similarly situated employees (the "Hourly Employees"), seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages. Wilson worked as a deli clerk in one of the Defendant's stores from August 2023 to August 2024. Safeway is a major American supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DXZjaC at no extra charge.[CC] SAINT JOSEPH: Nurses Sue Over Hospital's Low Staffing Levels ------------------------------------------------------------ Chad Van Alstin, writing for Health Exec, reports that a group of nurses from Saint Joseph Medical Center in Illinois filed a class-action lawsuit against their employer, accusing it of operating at dangerously low staffing levels that put patient health at risk. In a lawsuit, four nurses are named as lead plaintiffs, though all current and former nurses who worked at the facility and suffered as a result of the alleged understaffing can join the lawsuit, assuming it moves forward. Named as defendants in the case are Prime Healthcare Services, a private holding company, and faith-based nonprofit Ascension. Together, the two entities own Saint Joseph Medical Center, which sits just outside Chicago. The two companies are accused of failing to provide a safe work environment for nurses, which in turn put the lives of patients at risk. Specifically, the organizations are accused of operating without regard to minimum safe staffing ratios, which compare nurse-to-patient ratios based on capacity. State laws protect patients, nurses Two laws in Illinois mandate safe staffing levels, the Nurse Staffing by Patient Acuity Act and the Hospital Report Card Act. Prime and Ascension are accused of violating both of them. Medical errors were said to have happened as a result of the limited nursing staff, including medication delays and poor infection control. Alleged issues with staffing, and the resulting medical errors, are said in the lawsuit to have gone on for years and were a problem throughout the hospital. "By endangering the lives of patients through severe understaffing and forcing plaintiffs and other nurses to watch helplessly as the needs of their patients are ignored, the defendants have engaged in conduct that is unethical, immoral and indifferent to the conduct expected of a hospital, to provide safe and adequate patient care," the lawsuit reads. It goes on to state that nurses suffered heightened levels of stress as a result and were virtually helpless to improve the situation, as plaintiffs had no control over worker scheduling and staffing policy. Further, it's alleged that attempts to report concerns over working conditions and patient safety were ignored. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, both to recoup losses from pain and suffering, and to compel Prime and Ascension to comply with state law. The lawsuit is still pending in a county court. HealthExec has reached out to Saint Joseph Medical Center for comment. [GN] SCPS LLC: Steward Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandon Steward, and others similarly situated v. SCPS LLC, Case No. 33-CV-2026-900065.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00968-HNJ. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class broadly defined as "All Alabama residents who spent money purchasing virtual coins on Defendant SCPS's website and suffered a net loss within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint and continuing to a date to be set by the Court following certification."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald P. Gillespy, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 251-3000 Fax: (205) 458-5100 Email: ggillespy@burr.com - and - Forrest S. Latta, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 11 N. Water Street, Suite 22200 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 344-5151 Fax: (251) 344-9696 Email: forrest.latta@burr.com SCPS LLC: White Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama -------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Haley White, and others similarly situated v. SCPS LLC, Case No. 33-CV-2026-900070.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00966-HNJ. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class broadly defined as "All Alabama residents who spent money purchasing virtual coins on Defendant SSPS's website and suffered a net loss within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint and continuing to a date to be set by the Court following certification."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald P. Gillespy, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 251-3000 Fax: (205) 458-5100 Email: ggillespy@burr.com - and - Forrest S. Latta, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 11 N. Water Street, Suite 22200 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 344-5151 Fax: (251) 344-9696 Email: forrest.latta@burr.com SEACAP SOLUTIONS: Zappia Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT ZAPPIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SEACAP SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03465-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[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 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SEATOWN ELECTRIC: Higginbotham Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM HIGGINBOTHAM, SHAUN HENSLER, MICHAEL PEREZ, and VINCE GIST, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. SEATOWN ELECTRIC, PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01968 (W.D. Wash., June 5, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers who have worked as sales technicians, service technicians, electricians, plumbers, and other similar job titles for the Defendant in the State of Washington under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant pays its technicians on an hourly basis. As part of their job duties, Defendant required Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Class Members to use and work from company vehicles, which contained the tools necessary for them to execute their job duties. Even though Plaintiffs' and Rule 23 Class Members' company vehicles constituted the employer's premises and workplace, and Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Class Members were on duty during their commutes to and from their first and last jobs, respectively, the Defendant failed to fully compensate Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Class Members for all this work time, says the suit. The Defendant is a company that provides HVAC, plumbing & electrical services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cassandra Lenning, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 E-mail: clenning@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Brunson Seeks to Recover Electricians' Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK BRUNSON, ERNEST SMITH, and NORMAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04964 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2026) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a putative class of laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by Securus who installed, repaired, and maintained inmate communications systems and technology in jails, prisons, and public hospitals in the State of New York. The Plaintiffs and class members were not paid the total amount of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for the "Electrician" occupation for work performed for the City and State of New York and its agencies according to the applicable New York City Prevailing Wage Schedule, as required by the contractual terms set forth in New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs and class members also seek to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as their overtime pay was calculated using an unlawfully low regular rate of pay. Securus is a communications and technology provider for correctional facilities across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Rozger, Esq. MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Class Settlement in Bailey Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KORINE BAILEY, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02749-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Parker entered an order granting corrected motion for preliminary approval of settlement. Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the Agreement to determine whether the Settlement warrants notice to members of the proposed Settlement Class, the Court ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES as follows: -- The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), including all individuals satisfying the criteria below: A. The individual resides in the United States; and B. was a Plan participant or beneficiary at any point from Oct. 8, 2018, through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; and C. paid a tobacco or nicotine surcharge in connection with their participation in the Plan from Oct. 8, 2018, through the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; and D. The individual was not fully reimbursed the tobacco or nicotine surcharge payments made from Oct. 8, 2018, through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. The "Class Period" is Oct. 8, 2018, through the date of this Order. -- A final approval hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) is scheduled to be held before the Court on Oct. 9, 2026, at 9 a.m. The Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. Sedgwick provides claims and productivity management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8iSECT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 The Defendant is represented by: Blake Crohan, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 W Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 SELLECK CHEMICALS: Beckles Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yirmeyah Arturo Delano Beckles, individually, and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. SELLECK CHEMICALS LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26CV180808 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05405. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due and Payable at Separation of Employment; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Unfair Business Practices; and Violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Edward Wells, Esq. Xue Chang, Esq. Mengdi Wang, Esq. INNOVATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, P.C. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (626) 344-8949 Email: ted.wells@consultils.com yuki.chang@consultils.com mandy.wang@consultils.com SHELL CHEMICAL: Class Certification in Flynn Due Feb. 19, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLYNN v. SHELL CHEMICAL APPALACHIA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00193 (W.D. Pa., Filed Feb. 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motion to extend time for scheduling order. -- Class certification fact discovery shall be completed: September 25,2026. -- Plaintiffs' expert reports as to class certification shall be served: October 16, 2026. -- Defendant's expert reports as to class certification shall be served: December 18, 2026. -- Depositions of class certification experts must be completed: February 5, 2027. -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum in Support,and all supporting evidence shall be filed: February 19, 2027. -- Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification andall supporting evidence shall be filed: March 19, 2027. -- Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in support of class certification, if any, shall be filed: April 9, 2027. The nature of suit states Diversity-Torts to Land. Shell is an operating natural gas power plant.[CC] SNAP FINANCE: Faces Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CARRODINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SNAP FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01777-RFB-DJA (D. Nev., June 11, 2026) seeks to stop Defendant, from placing calls to the cell phones of Carrodine and likely thousands of other persons whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Carrodine brings this class action lawsuit against Defendant for improperly placing these calls to persons whose phone numbers were registered on the DNC List, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Snap Finance operates as a fintech company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig K. Perry, Esq. CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES 2300 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 800 Las Vegas, NE 89102 Telephone: (702) 228-4777 Facsimile: (702) 943-7520 E-mail: cperry@craigperry.com - and - Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 E-mail: CRoberts@butschroberts.com SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Barber, writing for Single Tracks, reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Specialized in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California , alleging that the bike company owes customers refunds of tariff-related surcharges. The suit seeks total damages in excess of $5 million. A similar lawsuit, filed June 12, 2026, alleges refunds are owed to Trek bike buyers as well. Specialized and Trek implemented tariff-related surcharges in 2025 In 2025, Specialized announced a surcharge on bicycle sales related to increased tariffs implemented by the US government. According to the lawsuit, the surcharge ranged from $25 up to $1,400, depending on the product. In February of 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal. As a result, the Court of International Trade said that U.S. Customs and Border Protection must return any tariffs that were collected. Specialized and many other bike brands, including Trek, Ibis, Marin, and Shimano, sued the US government to recover tariff fees they had paid. "Despite seeking and now being entitled to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the subject tariffs, Specialized has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers," the Specialized suit says. "Upon the determination that the subject tariffs were unlawful, giving rise to Specialized's right to receive the duties it paid under the unlawful tariff scheme, Specialized was likewise obligated to return the corresponding tariff surcharge it collected from Plaintiffs and Class members. Specialized's retention of those surcharges unjustly profits Specialized at the expense of consumers." The plaintiffs allege tens or hundreds of thousands of Specialized customers were affected. Boilerplate language in the Trek suit estimate that more than 100 customers are affected. Plaintiffs in the Trek lawsuit are listed as Milton Wade and Noah Wright, "individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated." The suit says, in part, "If Plaintiffs and the Class had known that Trek would unfairly retain the tariff surcharge Trek imposed on consumers despite asserting the subject tariffs were illegal, they would not have purchased or would have paid less for Trek's products." Many companies are due massive refunds, but most have not announced plans to refund customers USA Today reports that many of the largest US companies are seeking tariff-related refunds, including Ford Motor Company ($1.3 billion) and UPS ($500 million). The article notes that among major corporations, only UPS has committed to returning funds to customers. The Specialized lawsuit names as plaintiffs "all individuals in the United States who purchased a Specialized product through Specialized or at an Authorized Specialized Dealer," and applies to customers who purchased bikes beginning February 1, 2025, through the present date. Plaintiffs are seeking a refund of any tariff-related fees plus interest for affected class-action members, or $500, whichever is greater. [GN] SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Faces Montoya Suit Over Tariff Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIJAH ZISKIN and CAMILA MONTOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-05616 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2026) seeks to ensure that the Plaintiffs' and the proposed Classes' contributions to paying the subject tariffs are returned and to demand appropriate monetary, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose new and significant tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign country, including those from which Specialized sources its products. Following the imposition of the subject tariffs, Specialized publicly stated that it would implement price increases across its product lines to manage the financial impact of the subject tariffs. Consistent with these statements, Specialized increased the retail prices for its products in the United States to account for the cost of the newly imposed tariffs. The Plaintiffs and the Class purchased Specialized products after these price increases took effect and, as a result, paid higher prices reflecting these tariff-related adjustments (tariff surcharges). Specialized challenged the legality of the subject tariffs in the United States Court of International Trade, seeking to halt enforcement of the tariff orders and obtain refunds of the duties it paid because of the subject tariffs, says the suit. Specialized designs, manufactures, imports, and sells bicycles, bicycle parts and components, and bicycle accessories to consumers ranging from hobbyists to elite cyclists.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles R. Toomajian III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 Email: charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com SPLITERO FUNDING: Faces McNulty Class Suit in S.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPLITERO FUNDING, INC. The case is captioned as LYNN WILSON-MCNULTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPLITERO FUNDING, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03549-JO-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2026). Splitero provides homeowners with options to access home equity without new debt or additional monthly payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com SPROUTS FARMERS: Washington Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC.; SFM LLC DBA SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV12330 (Filed: April 16, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 10, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-CV-06316 to the proceeding. The case is a putative wage and hour class action. The complaint purports to assert eleven categories of California Labor Code and Wage Order violations against Defendants on a class-wide basis, stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action under the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; and (5) failure to indemnify business expenses. The Defendant offers natural and organic foods, including fresh produce, bulk foods. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Kathryn M. Evans, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-Mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com kmevans@fisherphillips.com STARFIGHTERS SPACE: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Starfighters Space, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-06344 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Defendant has minimum contacts in California by marketing to residents of California to purchase stock.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue No. 509 Miramar, FL 33027 E-mail: Tcpa-Service@Plgdamage.com Vv@Plgdamage.com STATION CASINOS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hall Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA HALL and CASSANDRA NORTHWICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATION CASINOS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01703 (D. Nev., June 5, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs 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. Cybercriminals had unfettered access and acquired Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information from the Defendant's systems for an extended period of time. The hackers were able to infiltrate Defendant's information systems and perform malicious activity -- likely including reconnaissance and data exfiltration functions that should have had alarm bells ringing, the suit says. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Samuel Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com STITCH FIX: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2026, that the company is a nominal defendant in a shareholder derivative action which asserts breach of fiduciary duty and related claims against certain current and former officers and directors. It generally alleges that these individuals purportedly caused or allowed the company to issue false or misleading statements. The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, damages on the company's behalf, corporate governance reforms, and an award of attorneys fees and expenses. A substantially similar shareholder derivative action was later filed and has been consolidated with the initial derivative case for all purposes. The defendants have moved to dismiss the consolidated derivative complaint, and that motion remains pending. Stitch Fix, Inc. is an online personal styling service that combines data science and human stylists to deliver curated apparel and accessories to clients. The company operates primarily in the United States, offering subscription and on-demand "Fix" shipments through its digital platform. STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Faces Serrato Class Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SERRATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01599 (E.D. Va., June 8, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries that the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and likely millions of others due to 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 data that Defendant exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information like first name or first initial and last name along with one or more of: Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and other highly sensitive and confidential information. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Defendant with the understanding Defendant would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. On or about June 1, 2026, Defendant announced the Data Breach to the public, revealing for the first time that on May 21, 2026, Defendant concluded its investigation and determined that an unauthorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members continues to be in jeopardy because of Defendant's actions and inactions described herein. Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come and now must constantly monitor their accounts for unauthorized activity, says the suit. The Defendant provides educational services as the parent company of Capella University, Strayer University, Torrens University, Jack Welch Management Institute, and Sophia, and additional products and services through Workforce Edge.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Ryan J. Mcgee, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: rmcgee@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Vaquera Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA VAQUERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01636 (E.D. Va., June 11, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant recently experienced. As part of its operations, the Defendant collects and maintains highly sensitive information, including PII, about both its current and former students. Despite knowing how sensitive this information is, Defendant failed to adequately protect it, allowing cybercriminals to infiltrate Defendant's insufficiently protected computer systems. On or around May 29, 2026, the Defendant began notifying state government officials that it had suffered a Data Breach. Some time after, the Defendant began sending notices of the breach to the victims affected by it. In the notifications it sent to state government officials, Defendant indicated that the Data Breach occurred sometime between February 23, 2026, and February 25, 2026. In other words, it is unknown how long cybercriminals were able to access Defendant's network before the Data Breach was discovered, and it is likewise unknown how much information was copied and exfiltrated from Defendant's systems during the Data Breach. The types of Private Information cybercriminals obtained through the Data Breach include full names, Social Security Numbers, driver's license or state ID card numbers, and passport numbers, says the suit. The Defendant is a private education company that owns and operates several schools and education platforms, including, among several others, Strayer University and Capella University.[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 - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Christopher J. Pollack, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLC 18 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: jmartin@awkolaw.com cpollack@awkolaw.com SUMMIT NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Purnell Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN PURNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 2:24-cv-00190-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Rankin entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion and application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards to class representatives. The Court awards Class Counsel $133,333.33 in attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses of $1,664.45 to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards the Class Representative Brian Purnell $4,000.00 to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. -- The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Brian Purnell as Class Representative. -- The Court grants final approval to its appointment of class counsel as provided in the preliminary approval order, appointing Terence R. Coates and Jonathan T. Deters of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg, PLLC, as Class Counsel. -- The Court certifies the following Class for settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement: "All individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice by Summit informing them of the Data Incident Summit discovered in May 2024." Summit is a provider of banking and lending services intended to serve commercial, agriculture, real estate, mortgages, and construction sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vm7eBI at no extra charge.[CC] TEKSYSTEMS INC: Masood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TEKsystems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Imran Masood, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TEKsystems, Inc., Amazon Studios LLC, TEKsystems Global Services, LLC; Case No. 26STCV17676 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." TEKsystems -- https://www.teksystems.com/en/ -- is a full-stack technology services provider.[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 TERIYAKI BOY: Garcia Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA GARCIA, and FERNANDO MARMOLEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TERIYAKI BOY, INC., SMITH and PRAFEROSA LLC, DOUBLE DRAGON FOOD CORPORATION, LLC, MAMA HOPE and DELIGHT 47, LLC, PAPA NORTH STORE, INC., JOLLY FOODS, LLC, TERIYAKI BOY USA FRANCHISING COMPANY, LLC, TERIYAKI BOY IP, LLC, ELIZABETH SMITH, BRAD SMITH, and XYZ Corporations I to XX, name fictitious true name of number of entities being unknown, Case No. 2:26-cv-01702 (D. Nev., June 5, 2026) is a class action complaint for vbiolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada State Law by having the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees regularly perform 40 or more hours of work per week without the payment of overtime (time and one-half pay) for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA. Plaintiff Garcia separated from her employment with the Defendants in or around October 2024. She worked more than 40 hours per week the majority of the weeks beginning in January 2024 through October 15, 2024 when she separated from her employment. The Plaintiff Marmolejo separated from his employment with Defendants in or around May of 2025. He worked more than 40 hours per week the majority of the weeks beginning in January 2025 until May of 2025 when he separated from his employment. Teriyaki is a Philippines-based casual dining restaurant chain established in October 2005. Known for serving quality Japanese comfort food like its signature Teriyaki Chicken and bento boxes, the brand operates under the umbrella of Max's Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruthann Devereaux-Gonzalez, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1811 South Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210 Las Vegas, NE 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 TESLA INC: Waller Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla, Inc., et al. The case is styled as David Waller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tesla, Inc., Tesla Lease Trust, Tesla Finance LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05350 (N.D. Cal., June 4, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Tesla, Inc. -- https://www.tesla.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Alexander Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: msmith@classlawdc.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Answer 22 RFAs on Vagueness Grounds -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, and Anne Arundel County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., and Cephalon, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission. Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Admission comprised 54 RFAs, of which 35 were disputed. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant's RFA responses were permeated by three specific issues. First, Defendant objected to a variety of terms as vague, but these terms are neither unique nor without a commonly understood, plain-language definition. Second, in multiple instances, Defendant rewrote the specific RFA to give it a different meaning rather than answering the RFA as written. Third, Defendant improperly objected to a host of RFAs as involving pure issues of law. On the vagueness objections, the court found that Defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the RFA terms in dispute were vague or ambiguous. Defendant did not specifically address 20 of the 22 disputed terms in its opposition, and its generic argument that Plaintiffs oversimplified Rule 36 was unpersuasive. The court found Defendant's vagueness objections to these 20 terms bordered on the ridiculous and were a waste of time and resources of the parties, their clients, and the court. The court overruled Defendant's vagueness objections to RFAs 1, 3, 16, 20, 25, 32-35, 37, 39-44, 46, 48, and 54, and ordered Defendant to serve answers to these RFAs. The court denied the motion as to RFAs 28, 45, and 47, finding Defendant had denied each of these, fairly responded to the substance of the matters, and qualified its answers in accordance with Rule 36. On the issue of Defendant rewriting RFAs, the court examined RFAs 4, 13, and 24. For RFA 4, the court found Defendant had neither specifically denied nor admitted the request. Instead, Defendant materially rewrote it and responded to a much narrower, carefully tailored request to avoid the admission sought. The same analysis applied to RFA 13, where Defendant employed the same double-speak, interjecting much narrower characterizations into its response. The court ordered Defendant to serve amended answers to RFAs 4 and 13. For RFA 24, however, the court found Defendant properly qualified its answer in accordance with Rule 36, and denied the motion as to that RFA. On the pure-issues-of-law objection, the court sustained Defendant's objections to the first eight disputed RFAs -- RFAs 9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29, and 30 -- which asked Defendant to admit whether certain documents contained sufficient factual information to allow a reasonably diligent plaintiff to infer certain facts. The court agreed those requests required a legal judgment as to what constitutes a reasonably diligent plaintiff, a standard that remained in dispute. The court overruled Defendant's objections to RFAs 49 and 50, which focused on actual knowledge rather than inquiry notice, finding these were straightforward requests for admission of facts. Defendant was ordered to serve answers to RFAs 49 and 50. Defendant was ordered to serve all answers required by the order within fourteen days of the date of the order. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cxy8dG from PacerMonitor.com TEXAS CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hasrallah Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HASSAN HASRALLAH, 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-01864-L (N.D. Tex., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information provided by and belonging to Defendant's clients. As part of the ordinary course of business and Defendant's regular business activities, Defendant collects, maintains and stores the Private Information of millions of individuals, including Plaintiff. The Defendant's clients had entrusted their Private Information to Defendant in order to conduct business with Defendant. Accordingly, on or about April 27, 2026, Defendant experienced a cyber-attack where an unauthorized third party accessed and exfiltrated Private Information that had been entrusted to Defendant. The exfiltrated Private Information belonged to and was provided by Defendant's clients such as Plaintiff. The Defendant has not disclosed any material information about how and why the breach occurred, or what steps it has taken to mitigate any future harm, says the suit. Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a bank holding company for Texas Capital Bank and Bask Bank. Bask Bank operates as an online only bank, providing financial services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Samuel M. Ward, Esq. Andrew J. Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com aheo@barrack.com sward@barrack.com TRUGREEN LIMITED: Delvalle Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as PATTI DELVALLE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a TRUGREEN, Case No. CH-26-0641 (Filed May 5, 2026) was removed from the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, for the Thirteenth Judicial District at Memphis to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division on June 10, 2026. The Western District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02670 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts five "Claims for Relief" or "Counts" against TruGreen: (1) Gross Negligence and Negligence Per Se; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion Upon Seclusion and Public Disclosure of Private Facts; and (5) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Michigan. TruGreen offers lawn plans, fertilization, tree and shrub care, pest control, and mosquito defense.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com - and - Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street 18th Floor No. 3037 Columbia, SC 29201 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave., Suite 1300, No. 16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Ryan A. Strain, Esq. George T. Lewis, Esq. Ryan A. Strain, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: blewis@bakerdonelson.com rstrain@bakerdonelson.com U-RELAX MOVING CO: Chung Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U-Relax Moving Co. The case is styled as Steve Chung, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. U-Relax Moving Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-01529-JPW (M.D. Pa., June 4, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. U-Relax Moving -- https://urelaxmoving.com/ -- offers local and long distance moves in Maryland and the DMV area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com UNITED MOMMAS: Faces Chaplin Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- TARA CHAPLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED MOMMAS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-12649-MPK (D. Mass., June 10, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Defendant offers childcare, healthcare, and other parental services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: omer@edelsberglaw.com UNITED STATES: Z.A. Seeks to Provisionally Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.A., a minor, by and through their parent, A.A.; et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-04998-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to provisionally certify the Class and Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford ("LPCH") Subclass defined below pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for purposes of classwide preliminary injunctive relief. Class: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at a healthcare institution located in the State of California, including Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford." LPCH Subclass: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford." In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A). The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification because the Defendants' challenged conduct threatens imminent and irreversible harm to the Plaintiffs and absent class members, the suit says. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, and Lowell & Associates PLLC as provisional class counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiffs include Z.B., a minor, by and through their parent, B.B.; Z.C., a minor, by and through their parent, C.C.; Z.D., a minor, by and through their parent, D.D.; Z.E., a minor, by and through their parent, E.E.; F.F.; and Z.G., a minor, by and through their parents, G.G. and A.G. Lucile is a women's and children's hospital. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j6IZsU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon P. Minter, Esq. Christopher F. Stoll, Esq. Amy Whelan, Esq. Rachel Berg, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS 1401 21st Street #11548 Sacramento, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 392-6257 E-mail: sminter@nclrights.org cstoll@nclrights.org awhelan@nclrights.org rberg@nclrights.org - and - Gay C. Grunfeld, Esq. Kara J. Janssen, Esq. Rosen Bien, Esq. GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-1738 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com kjanssen@rbgg.com - and - Abbe David Lowell, Esq. Caleb Hayes-Deats, Esq. Schuyler Standley, Esq. LOWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1250 H Street, N.W., Suite 250 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 964-6110 Facsimile: (202) 964-6116 E-mail: ALowellpublicoutreach@lowellandassociates.com CHayes-Deats@lowellandassociates.com SStandley@lowellandassociates.com - and - Joshua Rovenger, Esq. Donovan Bendana, Esq. GLBTQ LEGAL ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS (GLAD LAW) 18 Tremont Street, Suite 950 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone:(617) 426-1350 E-mail: jrovenger@gladlaw.org dbendana@gladlaw.org UNIVERSAL DEDICATED: Colemnan Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- TANGELA COLEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL DEDICATED OF NEBRASKA & WISCONSIN LLC, Case No. 26-cv-1015 (E.D. Wis., June 5, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff is an adult female resident of the State of Wisconsin residing at 928 West 4th Avenue, Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The Defendant is a logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 1200 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 270 Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Justin Schwartz Removed from Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. University of Colorado, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00390 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order that Schwartz's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. Claim one, which is the only claim against Justin Schwartz, is dismissed without prejudice. Schwartz is thus removed from the action. The motion for class certification is also denied as moot. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. University of Colorado is a premier public research university.[CC] VALIDUS ENERGY: Faces Waypoint Suit Over Underpayment of Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------------ WAYPOINT OIL & GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. VALIDUS ENERGY II MIDCON LLC, and ROAN RESOURCES LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01377-PRW (W.D. Okla., June 11, 2026) claims against Validus concerning actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, through improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay royalties as required by the applicable agreements and Oklahoma law. Plaintiff Waypoint Oil & Gas, LLC is a limited liability company organized under Oklahoma law with a principal place of business in Oklahoma. Roan owns working interests (i.e., a lessee's interest) in wells operated by Validus Energy II Midcon LLC in which Plaintiff and Class members own royalty interests. Validus is in the business of producing and marketing natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, from oil-and-gas wells in Oklahoma in which the Class members hold royalty interests.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Gleason, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, PC One Leadership Square 211 North Robinson, Suite 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-3357 Facsimile: (405) 232-6515 E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com VIA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Garlesky Suit Over Shares' Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHAN GARLESKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:26-cv-04870 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is a federal class action under the Securities Act of 1933 against certain of the Company's senior executives and directors who signed the Registration Statement, effective September 15, 2025, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering, and the underwriters of the Offering. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus (filed with the SEC on August 15, 2025, and September 15, 2025, respectively) including all amendments, contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required by law to be disclosed. On September 15, 2025, Via conducted its IPO, offering 10,714,285 shares of its common stock to the investing public at a price of $46 per share (the Offering Price). The Defendants anticipated generating gross proceeds of nearly $493 million from the IPO. According to the Offering Documents, Via's platform provides "cutting-edge software and technology-enabled services" to government agencies and private organizations "responsible for providing public transportation." Specifically, Via's solutions "address key workflows for the end-to-end management of transit networks," including "planning and scheduling, operating software, tech-enabled services, passenger tools, and data and insights." The Offering Documents highlighted that Via's "ability to generate measurable impact to our customers has enabled the Company "to achieve significant and durable revenue growth." The Company touted its "rapid growth," which was "showcased" by its Platform Annual Run-Rate Revenue (ARR). There was no indication that growth rates would be declining. The Company also highlighted that "revenues from Europe accounted for 29% and 32% of our total revenues, respectively, a majority of which were earned in Germany." Specifically, for the six months ended June 30, 2025, nearly 20% of Via's total revenue came from Germany, meaning it was integral to the Company's "successful land and expand strategy." Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other potential investors, however, Via's growth had already begun to encounter obstacles at the time of the IPO. As later revealed, Via was adding customers faster than those customers were generating revenue, resulting in a decline in ARR per customer for the first time in eight quarters. Moreover, Germany was stuck in a regulatory transition where customers had adopted microtransit but Via, as it later revealed, could not actually "sell the entire platform." As these true facts emerged after the Offering, the Company's shares fell sharply. By the commencement of this action, Via's shares traded as low as $14.52, a decline of nearly 70% from the Offering Price. By the action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other members of the Class who also acquired Via's shares pursuant and traceable to the Offering, now seeks to obtain a recovery for the damages suffered as a result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act, says the suit. Via is headquartered in New York, New York. The Company claims to provide software and tech-enabled services for cities, transit agencies, transport operators, school districts, universities, and corporations to manage public transportation. The Defendants include DANIEL RAMOT, CLARA FAIN, ARNON DINUR, WILLIAM NIX, NOAM OHANA, NECHEMIA PERES, CHARLES H. RIVKIN, SARAH E. SMITH, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, CITIZENS JMP SECURITIES, LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and WR SECURITIES, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, 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: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Colon Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Colon and Marquis Reddick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., VWFS Protection Services Inc., Safe-Guard Products International LLC, Case No. L-001031-26, was removed from the the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 11, 2026. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06943-ZNQ-JBD to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims for money damages and equitable relief both individually and on behalf of a putative class of "all natural persons in the United States, or alternatively New Jersey, who purchased a Volkswagen Drive Easy, Audi Pure Protection, or similar VWFS/Safe-Guard administered vehicle service protection contract in connection with a Volkswagen or Audi vehicle, presented a claim for engine failure, cylinder head failure, water pump failure, overheating-related engine damage, or related powertrain damage, and whose claim was denied, unreasonably delayed, conditioned on unreasonable pre-approval expenses, or otherwise not honored in accordance with the contract terms." The Defendant is the North American operational headquarters and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany.[BN] Defendant Safe-Guard Products International LLC is represented by: Mikelle V. Bliss, Esq. Mindi R. Zudekoff, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 111 Wood Avenue South, Suite 210 Iselin, NJ 08830 Telephone: (908) 292-0023 E-mail: mbliss@hinshawlaw.com mzudekoff@hinshawlaw.com WALGREEN CO: Bid for Class Certification in Polk Due Aug. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Polk v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 6:25-cv-00473 (D. Or., Filed March 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting motion for extension of time. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Aug. 13, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by Oct. 13, 2026. Dispositive Motions are due by Feb. 16, 2027. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. Walgreen is an American pharmacy store chain.[CC] WASHINGTON POST: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Surveillance Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Knappenberger of Courthouse News Service reports that The Washington Post faces a class action filed in the local D.C. Superior Court on Thursday, June 11, 2026, over the legacy paper's recent use of reader data to set subscription prices, a practice referred to as "surveillance pricing." The proposed class of readers argue in the suit the Post turned its audience's reading habits into a "pricing profile" in 2024 to offer different prices to subscribers based on the demographics and their activities, like reading the morning headlines, checking an election update or following a favorite columnist. "The Post has been monitoring usage and implementing this pricing practice, often referred to as 'surveillance pricing' since at least December 2024, at which point not a single subscriber was aware of the Post's surveillance pricing or secret harvesting of subscriber data," the readers wrote. "The law does not allow this conduct. State attorneys general across the country along with the Federal Trade Commission have begun investigating companies that engage in 'surveillance pricing' (also referred to as 'algorithmic pricing') using consumer personal information instead of market forces to set individualized prices," they added. The proposed class is led by Chelsea Blink, a subscriber to billionaire Jeff Bezos' Post who says she would have unsubscribed had she known her activity and data were being tracked for pricing purposes. According to the readers, the Post had to disclose the surveillance policy last year when New York required companies to reveal if they set prices using algorithms based on consumer's personal data. That law took effect in late 2025, but the Post only made the disclosure in March 2026 via a renewal email to subscribers. The class action includes several reactions from subscribers who were outraged by the revelation, with one customer comparing the scheme to a grocery store charging two customers different prices for a loaf of bread "with the difference only being their browsing habits." "That sense of unfairness became even more powerful when customers compared notes on their pricing publicly," the readers said. "One frustrated user described seeing a renewal jump from $170 to $260, canceled in response, then later clicked a link to an article and was shown a new subscription offer again, referencing the old lower annual price. Another person immediately asked: 'Why was yours $170 originally . . . I managed to get a $60 deal." According to the readers, the newspaper implemented a new privacy policy in December 2025, which allowed the company to gather subscriber information, analyze their cookies and browsing history and compile comprehensive profiles of the users. The profiles reportedly include reading habits and engagement patters, behaviors, preferences, demographic data, income, user preferences and characteristics, internet and browsing activity, location data, device information and more. Under the policy, the readers say, the Post could also access information from other "Bezos-owned" companies like Amazon, particularly users who used subscription promotions and linking services on Amazon. In the readers' view, the policy goes well beyond an average user's expectations for internet use, where accepting cookies and browsing data are regularly tracked for advertising. No subscriber would anticipate a company use their data against them to set higher prices, nor would they expect the tracking to "transform into a profiling system designed to predict their economic value." Blink asserts that the newspaper's conduct violates D.C.'s Consumer Protection Procedures Act and is asking a Superior Court judge to order the Post to accurately disclose its data practices and end its undisclosed surveillance pricing. The lawsuit comes as the major news outlet has undergone significant changes after Bezos bought the Post for $250 million in 2013. Just this February, the Post laid off over 300 journalists -- 30% of its staff -- as part of its effort to boost the newspaper's finances and better meet readers' needs. Matt Murray, the Post's executive editor, said at the time that the layoffs were "about positioning ourselves to become more essential to people's lives in what is becoming a more crowded, competitive and complicated media landscape," adding that online search traffic had fallen by nearly half in the last three years. In February 2025, in the wake of President Donald Trump's return to the White House, Bezos announced the paper's editorial section would focus on defending "personal liberties and free markets." The move came four months after Bezos killed a presidential endorsement of former Vice President Kamala Harris, the first time in 36 years, which triggered hundreds of thousands of subscribers to cancel. The Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] WP & M: Harris Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, MWHL ------------------------------------------------------------- COREY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WP & M REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC d/b/a WPM REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, Case No. 1:26-cv-02307-RDB (D. Md., June 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, unlawfully deducted wages, damages for retaliation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Service Manager at HOHM Highlandtown Apartments in Baltimore, Maryland. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid, non-exempt service and maintenance employees performed maintenance, emergency-response, resident-service, vendor-coordination, repair, and property-support work for residential properties managed by Defendant. The Defendant required hourly-paid, non-exempt service and maintenance employees to use its electronic timekeeping and payroll systems, and Defendant's managers, supervisors, payroll personnel, and human-resources personnel reviewed, edited, and approved employees' time records before payroll was processed. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid, non-exempt service and maintenance employees for all compensable work time, including time removed or reduced through manual edits, time spent performing after-hours and emergency work, time spent responding to on-call assignments and resident emergencies, and other work performed for Defendant's benefit. The Defendant also automatically deducted time from Plaintiff and from other similarly situated employees for purported meal breaks taken despite these employees often being forced to perform work during meal breaks, thereby resulting in nonpayment for time worked, including hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. Because Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweeks, Defendant's failure to count and pay all compensable hours caused Defendant to underpay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and Maryland law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at HOHM Highlandtown Apartments, located at 3905 Bank Street, Baltimore, Maryland. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff worked as a Service Manager. The Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately December 23, 2024, through August 29, 2025. The Defendant owns, operates, manages, and/or provides property-management services for residential properties, including multifamily apartment communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rinderman, Esq. Achchana Ranasinghe, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com ac@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com X.AI CORP: Faces Haley Class Action Suit Over Gas Turbines' Noise ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Haley, Preston Herrington, and Taylor Logsdon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. X.AI Corp., Space Exploration Technologies Corp., and MZX Tech LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00148-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., June 8, 2026) arises from Defendants' operation of gas-turbines in Southhaven in order to power the massive artificial intelligence (AI) data centers that the Defendants own and operate near Southaven. Prior to the operation of the facility, the Plaintiffs and their neighbors enjoyed the calm and quiet nature of Southhaven and Hoen Lake, and their small-town charm. The focus of this lawsuit is the Southaven Plant where, in less than a year, the Defendants have increased the number of gas-fired turbines on site by 1,800% -- from 3-18 to 27-57. The noise generated by the Southaven Plant includes a combination of high-pitched squealing, continuous engine roaring, low frequency rumbling, and tonal himming or whinning that travels across the property lines and into area homes in both Southaven and Horn Lake, the suit alleges. X.AI LLC, doing business as xAI, is a subsidiary of the American spaceflight company SpaceX working in the areas of artificial intelligence and social media.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Wiygul, Esq. WALTZER WIYGUL GARSIDE & WILD, LLC Ocean Springs, MS 39566 Telephone: (228) 872-1125 E-mail: robert@wwglaw.com ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Class A or Class C common stock of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZG) (NASDAQ: Z) between February 11, 2025 and May 7, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zillow investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Zillow class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zillow's agreement with Redfin Corporation was not a "partnership," but rather an acquisition of Redfin's business; (2) as a result of the Redfin Agreement, Zillow faced a materially heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and liability under federal antitrust laws; (3) upon the filing of an antitrust lawsuit, Zillow continued to downplay its legal exposure; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Zillow's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ZOETIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Zoetis, Inc., ("Zoetis" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZTS) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between January 14, 2025 and May 6, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Zoetis investors have until July 27, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/zoetis-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. On May 7, 2026, Zoetis reported financial results for the first quarter of 2026. Among other items, Zoetis reported net income of $601 million, flat year over year, and cut its full year 2026 profit guidance to between $6.85 and $7 a share, down from prior guidance of $7.00 to $7.10 a share. In the earnings release, CEO Kristin Peck said that "the first quarter unfolded in a more challenging operating environment than we anticipated. Pet owners demonstrated increased price sensitivity, resulting in a decline in veterinary visits and softer demand[.]" On this news, Zoetis's stock price fell $23.91 per share, or 21.5%, to close at $87.31 per share on May 7, 2026. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Core & Main Faces Product Liability Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Core & Main, Inc. has been and continues to be a defendant in asbestos-related litigation matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Like other companies in our industry, we have been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from the types of products that we distribute. As a distributor in this industry, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims in the past have included, and may in the future include, allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/383hxeky ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Wins Bellwether Judgment in Asbestos-Talc Case ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kit Yona, M.A., writing for findlaw.com, reports that in another bellwether trial, a Los Angeles jury ruled on June 5, 2026, that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was not negligent for selling Johnson’s Baby Powder containing talc. The verdict further underscores how unsettled liability remains in talc–asbestos litigation and whether (and how much) J&J will be held liable for fatal cases of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. J&J and fellow defendant Red River Talc LLC can take a moment to rejoice in their legal victory, which could affect thousands of consolidated cases in Los Angeles Superior Court, California State Court, and other multidistrict litigation venues. Previous jury verdicts in talcum powder lawsuits have resulted in both sides receiving favorable judgments. Predicting outcomes in future cases is further complicated by questions regarding the scientific aspects of the claims, such as whether talc is truly a carcinogen and if asbestos exposure, through feminine hygiene and cosmetic talc products, can cause peritoneal mesothelioma and other deadly cancers. How data is interpreted and applied varies across juries, leading to wide disparities in rulings. Having a better understanding of the science involved and what plaintiffs are claiming in their suits might not offer a foolproof assessment of how pending suits will go, but it certainly won’t hurt. ********* 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 ***