260622.mbx

260622.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 22, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 123 Headlines 700 CREDIT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $17.5MM AGGREKO LLC: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIR VOICE WIRELESS: Rapoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AJD PIZZA: Childs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AJE WHOLESALE: Smith Files Suit in N.D. California ALL CONSTRUCTION: Bermudez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ARGO CHEMICAL INC: Deverts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. B&B MOTORS INC: Hall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. B4 ENTERTAINMENT: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BAYOU TITLE: Carroll Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana BEYOND INC: Swarn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Agrees to Settle Birth Alert Class Suit for $66M BURRTEC WASTE SERVICES: Prado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIFORNIA STAFFING: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach CHESAPEAKE WASTE: Blann Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CHICAGO, IL: Settles Vehicle Towing Class Action for $1.43-Mil. CHINA INT'L: Daybreak Sues Over Shipping Container Price‑Fixing CLOUDFLARE INC: Voting Reclassification Harms Investors, Suit Says COLUMBUS, OH: Clark Files Suit in D. Columbia CRST EXPEDITED: Class Certification Reinstated in Askins FCRA Suit D.R. HORTON: Appeals Remand Order in Williams Suit to 4th Circuit DAVEY RESOURCE: Prattico Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation DELAWARE NORTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Green Alleges DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morrisette Claims DENTAQUEST GROUP: McElroy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info FAST EASY: 9th Circuit Restores TCPA Claim in Coffey on Appeal FIFTH THIRD: Fee Award in Klopfenstein Vacated in Part Over Rates GODADDY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Children's Privacy Suit for $8.25MM GUESS INC: Employees' Retirement Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. GUZMAN Y GOMEZ CORP: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HANS HUFSCHMID: Freiberg Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL: Slack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HISHAM SOLIMAN: Schwarz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. I.A.C. INC: Benegas Sues Over Failure to Protect Information INNOVATION SPECIALTIES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. IRIDEX CORPORATION: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Gibbons Says JANNEY MONTGOMERY: Underpays Interest to Customers, Corkum Alleges JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Website Illegally Collects Personal Info, Yun Says JP MURPHY MANAGEMENT: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KEYMARK CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Tyler Says KLOECKNER METALS: Hallisey Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. LIFE PROTECT: Underpays Company Employees, Watts Alleges MCKESSON CORP: True Health Appeals Denied Cert. Order to 9th Cir. MDL 2905: ACU Consumer Litigation Transferred to C.D. Cal. MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over PC Games Price Fixing MOLSON COORS: Martinez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts MR. MIKE'S: Faces Mtanious Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Tips OLE BEN FRANKLIN: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Cantu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PALACIO PALACIO: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PARADISE EXTERIORS: Esher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida PARK PICTURES: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California PORTA VIA CALABASAS: Curiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REDWOOD COMMUNITIES: Brewster Suit Removed to E.D. California ROADIE INC: Bickum Sues Over Failure for All Hours Worked ROBERT GREENBERG: FMI Common Stock Files Suit in Del Chancery Ct. ROBLOX CORP: Mukherjee Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price ROWAN UNIVERSITY: Das Suit Removed to D. New Jersey RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Heidel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington S&H MACHINE INC: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK: Timothee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEATGEEK INC: Scruggs Files Suit in E.D. California SED PHARMA INC: Thompson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING: Price-Booker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SINGING RIVER HEALTH: Roussel Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi SOHO INTERNATIONAL: Smith Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia SONESTA INT'L: Westman Sues Over Toxic Fragrances at Facilities STARBUCKS CORP: Quebec Judge OKS Suit Over Unfair Coffee Prices SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California TBD BRANDS: Klos Sues Over Mislabeled YoPup Product TEA LIVING INC: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TELEBRANDS CORP: Fratis Suit Removed to E.D. California TEZERAKT LLC: Damey-Fernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TIKVAH-ETTA: Pledger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOO FAST INC: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TUMI INC: Ahmed Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. UAG SOUTHBAY LLC: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED EDUCATION: Norris Files Suit Over Data Breach UNITED HEALTH: Ainsworth Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee UNITED HEALTH: Total Care Dental Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Lewis Suit Removed to S.D. California UNITED STATES SECURITIES: Hardin Files Suit in D. Columbia UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Right Steps Suit Removed to D. South Carolina UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Federal Judge Rejects Class Certification VERACITY WELLNESS: Elazari Files Suit Over Product's False Ad VICTRON ENERGY: Hernandez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages VISION LANDSCAPE: Negrin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Landscapers WALDORF=ASTORIA EMPLOYER: Daimon Suit Removed to C.D. California WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Circuit Revives Foster Care System Class Suit WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Abdelmalak Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WILLOW HEALTH: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Wilce Says ZILLOW GROUP: Breidert Sues Over Damages Following Share Price Drop ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Share Price Drop ********* 700 CREDIT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $17.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that 700 Credit has agreed to a $17,500,000 settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the credit reporting company failed to protect the sensitive information of its clients' customers from a data breach discovered in October 2025. The $17.5 million 700 Credit class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 4, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents who were sent notice indicating that their private information may have been impacted in the data breach. Court documents state that approximately 5.8 million people are covered by the class action settlement. 700 Credit settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented losses from fraud or identity theft related to the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or correspondence, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payout, class members can instead file a claim form to receive an approximately $50 cash payment, with no proof required. Court documents note that the final amount of this payment may increase or decrease on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of claims filed. ClassAction.org will update this page with instructions on how to file a claim form as they are released by the settlement administrator. In addition to a cash payout, all class members will automatically receive an enrollment code on their copy of the settlement notice for two years of credit monitoring services. Enrollment in this service will become available only after the settlement is granted final approval. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the 700 Credit data breach settlement following a hearing on December 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The 700 Credit class action lawsuit alleged that on October 25, 2025, cybercriminals were able to gain access to sensitive information stored on the credit reporting and identity verification company's web application using compromised credentials. Per court documents, private information potentially exposed during the data breach included names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers. [GN] AGGREKO LLC: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aggreko LLC. The case is styled as Fermin Castillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Aggreko LLC, Case No. 26STCV17042 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Aggreko LLC -- https://www.aggreko.com/en-us -- is a leading global provider of temporary power generation, temperature control, and compressed air equipment rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com AIR VOICE WIRELESS: Rapoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Voice Wireless, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Julia Rapoza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Air Voice Wireless, LLC, Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. 26-CIV-04159 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., May 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Complex Civil Unlimited Class Action." AirVoice Wireless -- https://airvoicewireless.com/ -- offers affordable and premium prepaid plans with a large collection of phones.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com AJD PIZZA: Childs Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Childs, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. AJD PIZZA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-11932-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to themself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores. The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages – unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the complaint. The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendant's current and former delivery drivers. The Defendant operates several pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 N Central Expy, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com AJE WHOLESALE: Smith Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aje Wholesale, et al. The case is styled as Brienne Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aje Wholesale, Aje Wholesale US, Aje IPCO Pty Ltd, Case No. 3:26-cv-04966-PHK (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Aje Wholesale -- https://ajeworld.com/ -- offers ready-to-wear, denim and accessories online.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: (747) 234-6673 Email: shalini@dogralawgroup.com ALL CONSTRUCTION: Bermudez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jose Bermudez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situate v. ALL CONSTRUCTION & PLUMBING INC., and VLADIMIR MARRERO, Case No. 1:26-cv-24055-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (the "FLSA"), and for retaliation for filing (or attempting to file) a valid workers' compensation claim, in violation of Florida's Workers' Compensation law. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Instead, Defendants only paid Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, a salary for all hours worked in a single workday, instead of paying Plaintiff for every hour worked in excess of 40 at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. Under the FLSA, Defendants were required to properly compensate Plaintiff, and those similarly situated to him, at the rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for those hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Throughout the entirety of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants violated the FLSA and, to date, Defendants continue to pay similarly situated employees incorrectly in that: No payments, and provisions for payment, have been made by Defendants to properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at the statutory rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week as provided by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from on August 5, 2025 to on March 2, 2026. All Construction was a domestic profit corporation engaged in business in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fabian A. Ruiz, Esq. RUIZ TRIAL LAW, PLLC 9100 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (866) 784-9247 Fax: (866) 487-2599 Email: fabian@ruiztriallaw.com ARGO CHEMICAL INC: Deverts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Argo Chemical, Inc. The case is styled as Ross Deverts, on behalf of others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Argo Chemical, Inc., Case No. 26CUB01931 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Argo -- http://argochem.com/-- manufactures and sells industrial chemical products to the critical industries that keep California going.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nidah Farishta, Esq. Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM A Law Corporation 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-293-5623 Email: nidah@olfla.com - and - Alex Paul Katofsky, Esq. ALEX P. KATOFSKY, APC 5743 Corsa Ave., Ste. 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362-7310 Phone: 818-340-3600 Email: alex@apkatlaw.com - and - Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com B&B MOTORS INC: Hall Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&B Motors, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler T. Hall, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. B&B Motors, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE067380 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." B&B Motors, Inc. -- https://www.bbmotors.net/ -- is a Ford dealer in Havana, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com B4 ENTERTAINMENT: Guzman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against B4 Entertainment LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eddie J. Guzman, Jami Erickson, Daniel Keith Greer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GB4 Entertainment LLC doing business as Dirty Birds Bar & Grill, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26CU027523C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., May 19, 2026). B4 Entertainment LLC doing business as Dirty Birds Bar & Grill -- https://www.dirtybirdsbarandgrill.com/ -- offers a large sampling of crafted wing sauces, salads, burgers, sandwiches, and other treats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Huber, Esq. Bryce M. Van De Moere, Esq. GLOBAL LEGAL LAW FIRM 322 Encinitas Blvd, Suite 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 Fax: (888) 846-8902 Phone: (888) 846-8901 Email: jhuber@attorneygl.com bvandemoere@attorneygl.com BAYOU TITLE: Carroll Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cristina Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYOU TITLE, INC., Case No. 875-580 was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on June 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01233-BSL-DPC. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to implement reasonable data security measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to provide any notice regarding the Data Breach to affected individuals. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative nationwide class consisting of "all individuals in the United States whose Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach." The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and declaratory judgment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. Taylor P. Smith, Esq. ADAMS &REESE, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Phone: (504) 581-3234 Facsimile: (504) 566-0210 Email: gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com taylor.smith@arlaw.com BEYOND INC: Swarn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robin Swarn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beyond, Inc., Case No. 26CV190394 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. -- https://www.beyond.com/corporate/ -- is an American online retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Agrees to Settle Birth Alert Class Suit for $66M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leanne Sanders of APTN News reports that a $66 million settlement has been reached in a birth alerts class action in British Columbia. "This proposed settlement addresses a practice that operated for decades, often without people's knowledge, during one of the most vulnerable times of their lives," said Jen Winstanley, with CFM Lawyers in a news release. "If approved, the proposed settlement would create a process for people to seek information about whether a Birth Alert was issued about them, provide compensation and offer trauma-informed support throughout the claims process." Birth alerts involve the exchange of information between a social worker and a hospital. When the social worker feels an expectant mother may put their newborn at risk -- they issue a "birth alert" by informing the hospital of the pregnancy. The hospital, in turn, will notify the social worker when the baby is born. The lawsuit said that birth alerts shared private information without the person's knowledge, and that the practice disproportionately affected Indigenous families. "We know that they were disproportionately represented in the people who were the subject of birth alerts," said Michelle Segal, partner at CFM lawyers in an interview with APTN News. "And in terms of the personal impact on people, what that could mean for them is things like really early MCFD involvement in their lives where it might not have otherwise happened. Things like security measures in the hospital, being denied things like in-rooming with your infant, access to breastfeeding, possibly drug screens, that weren't medically indicated. So that's part of the impact on people's lives." The lawsuit in B.C. was filed in 2021 on behalf of people who were the subject of birth alerts. The province's records reported that 3,000 people were the subject of a birth alert in B.C. before the practice was ended in 2019. "Something important about this case is it's not about what happened afterwards. It's not about apprehensions," Segal said. "It's really about this information sharing, but for many people, it's linked. And so it is difficult to disentangle those two things, but this case is not about apprehensions." The proposed settlement is "a compromise resolution that does not include any admissions by any party," and comes after successful mediation with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Roshan Danesh acting as mediators. The settlement would provide $2,000 for eligible class members with Indigenous class members to receive an additional amount, and a collective fund to support affected families and communities. Class counsel said many people may not even know a birth alert was sent about them. The alerts were typically sent by child welfare workers from the MCFD to hospitals or "delegated Indigenous agencies" about a pregnant person before they gave birth. "There's other people who may read about this claim and think, 'gee, I wonder if my experience matches what they're describing. I wonder if I'm included?' And they will have to file a claim," Segal said. "And then we will go away and check hospital records for them to look for evidence of a birth alert in their hospital records . . . that process is gonna take a long time," she adds. Class actions concerning birth alerts are still ongoing in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. The settlement still has to be approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. A hearing will take place on December 4. "We're in the process of notifying everybody, Segal said. "People should take this time to go to the website, read the documents there, understand what's being proposed, and then they have the right to tell the court, I don't agree with the settlement. I don't agree with the way they've proposed to split this money up, or I don't agree with the lawyer's fees. Those are the three things that are kind of available to people right now, or they can choose now to say, I don't want to be in this at all." [GN] BURRTEC WASTE SERVICES: Prado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burrtec Waste Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alfonso Prado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Burrtec Waste Services, LLC, Case No. 26STCV15946 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Burrtec -- https://www.burrtec.com/ -- provides leading waste disposal, trash hauling, and recycling services to California communities since 1955.[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 CALIFORNIA STAFFING: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Staffing Solutions Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rafael Aguilar, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. California Staffing Solutions Inc., Recology Blossom Valley Organics - South, Recology Blossom Valley Organics - North, Case No. 26CUB01953 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." California Staffing Solutions Inc. -- https://cal-staffing.com/ -- is a staffing and recruiting company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Dr., Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 255-9047 Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Mwai of AL.com reports that Charter Communications Inc., doing business as Spectrum, is facing a new class action lawsuit accusing the company of failing to secure and protect Spectrum customers' and employees' personal identifiable information during a security breach. Mariah Kent of Connecticut filed the complaint against Charter Communications on June 1, 2026. The lawsuit alleges the company violated state and federal consumer laws, according to TopClassActions.com. The attack was carried out by the hacker group ShinyHunters. The group used a voice phishing scam to obtain an employee's Microsoft login information and access the company's Salesforce software platform. Kent alleges Spectrum failed to meet industry standards to safeguard its information systems containing customers' private information, including full names, email addresses, phone numbers, account plans and customer support tickets. The lawsuit claims that Spectrum did not adequately train employees against social engineering attacks. [GN] CHESAPEAKE WASTE: Blann Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Blann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHESAPEAKE WASTE INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02253-JRR (D. Md., June 5, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (the "MWHL"), and the Maryland wage Payment and Collection Law (the "MWPCL"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period(s), Chesapeake Waste knowingly and deliberately failed to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members overtime compensation on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, Chesapeake Waste's regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked and recorded hours in excess of 40--was (and is) to pay them a day rate but no overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The effect of Chesapeake Waste's practices is that Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were (and axe) not paid die proper amount of overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; thus, Chesapeake Waste has failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members under the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Chesapeake Waste in Maryland during the relevant time period(s). Chesapeake Waste is a Maryland-based waste-hauling and disposal company that collects, transports, and disposes of solid waste throughout Maryland's Eastern Shore.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com rtucci@zagfirm.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Settles Vehicle Towing Class Action for $1.43-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who owned a vehicle that the City of Chicago towed on or after June 11, 2017, under its abandoned vehicle ordinance and did not have current state registration at the time of the tow may qualify to submit a claim for up to $1,250 from a class action settlement. The City of Chicago agreed to pay $1.43 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the city towed certain vehicles it declared abandoned without first mailing notice to the owners if they lacked current registration. The plaintiffs claimed this practice violated due process rights under the U.S. and Illinois constitutions. Who can file a claim for a settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- The City of Chicago declared their vehicle abandoned and towed it on or after June 11, 2017. -- The tow occurred under Municipal Code of Chicago Sec. 9-80-110(a)(2) (previously Sec. 9-80-110(a)(b) and later Sec. 9-80-110(a)(ii)). -- The vehicle lacked current state registration at the time of the tow. -- They did not intend to abandon the towed vehicle. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive reimbursement up to $1,250 for towing, storage or other fees they paid to obtain their vehicle. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or use the same link to print a PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Santiago, et al. v. City of Chicago Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301132, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 The claim deadline is Aug. 12, 2026. Required claim information -- All class members must provide the claim ID and PIN from official settlement notice the class member received. -- They must also provide the vehicle make and license plate number. -- Claimants receiving a settlement payment of $600 or more may be required to submit a Form W-9 at a later date. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $80,000 -- Attorneys' fees: $395,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $32,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $25,000 to one plaintiff and $5,000 to a second ($30,000 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $1,425,000 Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 5, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 12, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 30, 2026 When is the Santiago v. City of Chicago payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 52 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged the City of Chicago towed vehicles it deemed abandoned without providing prior mailed notice to the owners if the vehicles lacked current registration. The plaintiffs argued this violated due process rights under the U.S. and Illinois constitutions. The city denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. As part of the settlement, the city also agreed to mail one notice to vehicle owners prior to towing vehicles it deems abandoned under the relevant ordinance. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $1,250 Deadline: August 12, 2026 [GN] CHINA INT'L: Daybreak Sues Over Shipping Container Price‑Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAYBREAK EXPRESS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTAINERS (GROUP) CO., LTD.; SHANGHAI UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS EQUIPMENT CO., LTD. a/k/a "Dong Fang International Containers"; CXIC GROUP CONTAINERS CO. LTD.; SINGAMAS CONTAINER HOLDINGS LTD.; BOLIANG MAI; TIANHUA HUANG; YONGBO WAN; QIANMIN LI; YUQIANG ZHANG; SIONG SENG TEO; VICK NAM HING MA; DOE 1; DOE 2, and DOES 3-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05571 (N.D. Cal., June 9, 2026) arises from a years-long conspiracy by the world's dominant standard dry shipping container manufacturers to restrict the supply and fix the prices and suppress competition for critically needed standard dry shipping containers. The complaint relates that beginning no later than November 14, 2019, Defendants engaged in a concerted scheme to artificially inflate the price of standard dry shipping containers by agreeing to limit their production, despite high levels of demand and a shipping crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic. Defendants engaged in this conspiracy through in-person meetings, emails, and text exchanges. Defendants even reduced some aspects of their conspiracy to a written agreement. Defendants adapted their conspiracy to further restrict output of Standard Dry Shipping Containers and ensure success of their unlawful goals to artificially raise prices, all the while taking steps to keep their coordinated activity secret. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conspiracy, the price of Standard Dry Shipping Containers more than doubled, while Defendants reaped extraordinary profits. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Plaintiff purchased standard dry shipping containers indirectly from one or more Defendants for its own use in commercial transportation services. Plaintiff, thus, suffered antitrust injury and damages by paying artificially inflated prices as a direct result of the antitrust violations. As a result, Plaintiff and class members have paid supracompetitive prices for standard dry shipping containers. Accordingly, Plaintiff and others similarly situated seek damages (including statutory damages where applicable), to be trebled or otherwise increased as permitted by a particular jurisdiction's antitrust law, and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent permitted by state laws. Plaintiff Daybreak Express, Inc. is an expedited shipping service and trucking company with ports in New York and New Jersey. Defendants are the largest standard dry shipping container manufacturers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Ronnie S. Spiegel, Esq. Christopher K. L. Young, Esq. Ivy Arai Tabbara, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com drice@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com itabbara@saverilawfirm.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com - and - Laura K. Mummert, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 E-mail: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Alexandra Klein, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com aklein@cuneolaw.com CLOUDFLARE INC: Voting Reclassification Harms Investors, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of CLOUDFLARE, INC., Plaintiff v. CLOUDFLARE, INC., MATTHEW PRINCE, MICHELLE ZATLYN, JOHN GRAHAM-CUMMING, CARL LEDBETTER, SCOTT SANDELL, MARK HAWKINS, KARIM LAKHANI, KATRIN SUDER, and STACEY CUNNINGHAM, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0763 (Del. Ch., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties. The case arises from a scheme by Cloudflare's founders to overhaul the company's existing capital structure to create a new class of non-voting common stock and a new class of super-voting preferred shares for the express purpose of perpetuating the founders' control while allowing them to generate billions of dollars in liquidity. According to the complaint, the Proposed Reclassification provides enormous benefits to the founders and harms Cloudflare's unaffiliated public stockholders. Absent the Proposed Reclassification, the founders are on the precipice of losing voting control over Cloudflare. With the Proposed Reclassification, the founders will be able to retain control for as long as they wish while substantially decreasing their economic stake in the company, suit says. Cloudflare, Inc. is a web infrastructure and website security company headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 COLUMBUS, OH: Clark Files Suit in D. Columbia --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Columbus, Ohio, et al. The case is styled as April Lashelle Clark, Kenneth Hill, Anthony Hill, Diamond Clark, Sui Juris and similarly situated protected persons v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO; ZACH KLEIN; NATHAN ANISTINE; SHEENA ROSENBERG; KEITH MOORE; ANDREW J. GINTHER, Mayor; ELAINE BRYANT, Chief; CITY OF COLUMBUS OF DIVISION OF PARKING SERVICES AND IMPOUND; FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; KEVIN BOYCE; STATE OF OHIO JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES; DAVE YOST; THOMAS SCHOLL; DAVID YOUNG, Judge; FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; DAN VACCARELLA; TWYLA LUCAS; SHYANN HOWARD; OMAR ROSE; SALVADOR LOPEZ; THOMAS COCLOUGH, all individually and in official capacity; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, And other unkown state and federal actors; Case No. 3:26-cv-05501 (D.D.C., May 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Columbus -- https://www.columbus.gov/Home -- is Ohio's state capital.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. CRST EXPEDITED: Class Certification Reinstated in Askins FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, reversed the order decertifying the class in the case, TERRY ASKINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., AN IOWA CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A172921 (Cal. App.). Askins applied online for a position with CRST, a trucking company. During the hiring process, CRST provided him with a document disclosing that it would conduct a background check. While employed, Askins also received additional forms that, among other things, referenced background checks. CRST conducted background checks on Askins both before and during his employment. Askins filed a class action complaint on behalf of all "Defendants' current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with Defendants at any time during the period for which a background check was performed beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action." The complaint alleged that CRST conducted background checks without providing legally required disclosures and obtaining proper authorizations, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), along with other claims not at issue in the appeal. It also proposed class treatment based on these alleged violations. Askins moved for class certification, seeking to certify a "consumer report class" covering all individuals whose consumer reports were obtained for employment purposes, and a narrower "driver class" for those who applied for driver positions. He also proposed two subclasses: one for individuals for whom CRST had no record of prior authorization to obtain a consumer report, and another for those for whom CRST lacked records of providing a Summary of Rights before obtaining such reports. CRST opposed certification. After several continuances, the court vacated the hearing on the original class certification motion, and Askins refiled the motion, which the court granted. Askins did not include either the refiled motion or the class certification order in the appellate record. About a year and a half later, in August 2023, he filed an amended class action complaint that did not change the asserted causes of action or the defined classes tied to the alleged statutory violations. CRST moved for class decertification based on Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., which held that a plaintiff must show a cognizable injury from a noncompliant disclosure to establish FCRA standing. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding Limon controlling and concluding Askins failed to allege a concrete injury. It held his claimed confusion and lack of awareness about the background check disclosure amounted only to an "informational injury," which was insufficient, and therefore decertified the class. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the FCRA does not require a concrete injury for standing under California law. It reasoned that the statute's text and legislative history permit statutory damages for disclosure violations without proof of actual harm. The Court of Appeals concluded that Askins had shown a sufficient interest in his FCRA claim and reinstated the class certification. Askins was awarded his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/c5y8CBGJx. Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Thomas Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- and Farrah Beverly Grant -- farrah@setarehlaw.com; and Public Justice, Leah M. Nicholls -- LNicholls@publicjustice.net -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Seth E. Merman for Nursing Home Reform, Centro Legal De La Raza, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, East Bay Community Law Center, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, The Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Public Counsel, and Public Justice as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. D.R. HORTON: Appeals Remand Order in Williams Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- D.R. HORTON, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Derek Williams, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00097-DCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, is brought against the Defendants for negligence and gross negligence, breach of implied warranties, and unfair trade practices. On Feb. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Anderson County Court of Common Pleas, County of Anderson, South Carolina, which Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. granted on May 4, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Derek Williams v. D.R. Horton, Inc., Case No. 26-1713, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DEREK WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq. Dabny Lynn, Esq. Charlotte Banning Winckler, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, PA 415 Mill Street Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 849-8400 (843) 883-2214 Defendant-Appellant D.R. HORTON, INCORPORATED is represented by: Jonathan Glenn Abrams, Esq. John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq. Amelia M. Farmer, Esq. William Jacob Henerey, Esq. David L. Paavola, Esq. Kimila L. Wooten, Esq. KENISON DUDLEY CRAWFORD, LLC 325 West McBee Avenue Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 501-3154 (864) 242-4899 DAVEY RESOURCE: Prattico Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENZO S. PRATTICO JR., JUSTINN CHARLES MANUEL WATERS, JARON REESE WEIMER, KRISTINN RENEE ROBEDA WATERS, MICHAEL PHILIP PRYSTALOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC. and THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01325 (N.D. Ohio, June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees at any time between 2022 and 2026. Davey Resource Group, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company based in Kent, Ohio. The Davey Tree Expert Company is a landscaping, grounds management, and tree care services provider based in Kent, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Luis Munoz de la Vega, Esq. SANDERS LAW GROUP 333 Earl Ovington Boulevard, Suite 402 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Email: csanders@sanderslaw.group lvega@sanderslaw.group DELAWARE NORTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Green Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DAMIA GREEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01182-LJV (W.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, name and driver's license numbers or state-issued identification number (collectively referred to as "personally identifiable information" or "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant received highly sensitive Private Information from Representative Plaintiff in connection with the services Representative Plaintiff obtained. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third party in the Data Breach that occurred on January 28, 2026. The Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until June 5, 2026, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. As a result, Representative Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and selling Representative Plaintiff's Private Information. Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members seek injunctive and other equitable relief. Defendant Delaware North Companies, Incorporated offers thousands of services, including food service, full service restaurants, catering, specialty retail, venue development and management, gaming and mobile wagering, and lodging management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert King, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT KING PLLC 650 Clinton Square Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 460-2193 E-mail: rking@robertkinglawfirm.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morrisette Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TONYA MORRISETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12621-AK (D. Mass., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in or about May 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. DentaQuest Group, Inc. is a managed care company based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: Gary@lcllp.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: McElroy Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEANETTA MCELROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12602 (D. Mass., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in or about May 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. DentaQuest Group, Inc. is a managed care company based in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 203-8459 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael L. Laird, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com FAST EASY: 9th Circuit Restores TCPA Claim in Coffey on Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VICKI COFFEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FAST EASY OFFER, LLC; GFSG, LLC, doing business as Keller Williams Realty Phoenix; KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-4066 (9th Cir.), Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and remanded for further proceedings. The case concerns the definition of "telephone solicitation" under the TCPA. Plaintiff Coffey alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by contacting her through phone calls and text messages even though she was registered on the national "do not call" registry. Coffey, an Arizona resident, alleges she received at least six phone calls and two text messages in fall 2024 from an employee of Fast Easy Offer, LLC (FEO), a real estate company that markets itself as assisting homeowners in selling properties and generating investor deals. She claims FEO purchases homes below market value and resells or assigns them to investors at a profit. She further alleges that FEO operates in coordination with Keller Williams Realty Phoenix through GFSG LLC, sharing leads and revenue, with FEO’s co-founder helping structure the arrangement. According to the complaint, many consumers who respond to FEO’s outreach ultimately become clients of either FEO or Keller Williams Realty Phoenix. Based on these allegations, Coffey filed a putative class action against FEO, Keller Williams Realty Phoenix, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (KWRI), alleging violations of the TCPA’s private right of action. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the alleged calls and texts did not qualify as "telephone solicitations" under the TCPA and that KWRI could not be held vicariously liable for FEO's conduct. After Coffey filed an amended complaint, the Defendants renewed their arguments. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that the calls and texts were not "telephone solicitations" because they did not expressly encourage the purchase of goods or services. Judge Smith held that Coffey adequately alleged that the calls and text messages qualified as "telephone solicitations" under the TCPA. Relying on the statute's text and Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., he explained that a solicitation does not require an explicit reference to a product or service. He interpreted 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(4) to mean that the relevant "purpose" is the purpose of initiating the call or message, which is to encourage the purchase or rental of goods, services, or property. Because Coffey alleged that the Defendants initiated the communications to solicit real estate brokerage services, she sufficiently stated a claim under the TCPA. Accordingly, Judge Smith reversed the district court's dismissal of Coffey's TCPA claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/Nr66quceo. Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- (argued), Apollo Law LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Emma L. Freeman -- emma@apollo-law.com -- Apollo Law LLC, Brooklyn, New York; Alexander D. Kruzyk -- akruzyk@pkglegal.com -- Pardell Kruzyk & Giribaldo PLLC, Austin, Texas; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Leif Overvold -- LOvervold@mayerbrown.com -- and Daniel E. Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Christopher J. Mikesh -- cmikesh@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, New York, New York; Eric M. Fraser -- efraser@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, Arizona; Anthony T. King -- aking@swlaw.com -- and Megan M. Carrasco -- mcarrasco@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; James M. Cool -- jcool@frgalaw.com -- Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendants-Appellees. FIFTH THIRD: Fee Award in Klopfenstein Vacated in Part Over Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of WILLIAM R. KLOPFENSTEIN; LORI LASKARIS; DANIEL LASKARIS; BRIAN C. HARRISON; JANET FYOCK; ADAM McKINNEY; DONALD E. ADANICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-3258 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part the district court's order awarding the class approximately $3.3 million in attorney's fees. Starting in 2008, Fifth Third Bank offered an "Early Access" cash advance program that charged customers $1 for every $10 borrowed from their accounts, with repayment triggered either upon a qualifying direct deposit or after 35 days. The bank represented this fee structure as equivalent to a 120% annual percentage rate (APR), but because APR reflects the cost of credit over time, the effective rate often exceeded 120% when customers repaid early, which commonly occurred in about 11 days on average. In 2012, Klopfenstein filed a class action in the Northern District of Ohio alleging that Fifth Third misrepresented the APR and overall cost of the Early Access loans. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, violations of Ohio usury law, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability on behalf of affected customers. Early in the litigation, Ohio-based class counsel coordinated with Tycko & Zavareei, a Washington, D.C. firm experienced in class actions. Tycko, along with attorneys from two other firms, was later appointed interim lead counsel. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio, where Fifth Third is headquartered, and consolidated with similar actions filed in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Illinois. After consolidation, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that retained several original claims, including breach of contract based on alleged APR overcharges and inaccurate monthly disclosures. The amended complaint also added a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, alleging that Fifth Third failed to provide accurate and meaningful APR disclosures. The Plaintiffs sought certification of a nationwide class based on these allegations. The parties later reached a mediated settlement for $8.5 million, which exceeded TILA's $2 million statutory cap, but the class withdrew after an expert suggested potential contract damages could be higher. Litigation then resumed, and the district court dismissed all claims except the TILA claim. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the class obtained entry of final judgment on its dismissed breach of contract claim to permit an immediate appeal. The district court granted the request, and the class appealed. On review, the court affirmed the Rule 54(b) certification but held that the contract language was ambiguous and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court certified two Rule 23(b)(3) classes—one for the breach of contract claim and one for the TILA claim. After additional discovery and trial preparation, the court granted summary judgment to the TILA class and awarded the statutory maximum of $2 million in damages. It denied summary judgment on the contract claim, which proceeded to trial, where the jury found a breach but concluded that Ohio’s voluntary payment doctrine barred recovery. Following trial, the class moved for attorney's fees under TILA's fee-shifting provision, seeking reasonable fees along with costs and service awards. In calculating its request, the class excluded time tied solely to the contract claim and hours after the TILA summary judgment ruling, ultimately seeking $5,638,622.53 in fees, $315,572.13 in costs, and $50,000 in service awards. The class based its request on adjusted Laffey rates, while Fifth Third argued the lower local Rubin rates should apply. The district court reviewed the billing records, excluded additional time attributable solely to the contract claim (including expert-related work), and applied a 15% across-the-board reduction for excessive or duplicative billing. It declined further reductions based on the class’s mixed success. The court also adopted Laffey rates rather than Rubin rates, citing the case's national scope and specialized litigation needs. It ultimately awarded $3,317,128.60 in attorney's fees, approximately 59% of the amount requested, which Fifth Third appealed as an abuse of discretion. Fifth Third argued that the district court abused its discretion in four ways: by treating the breach of contract and TILA claims as related for fee purposes, by applying only a 15% reduction for overstaffing, by refusing to reduce the award further based on the class’s limited success, and by applying Laffey rates to all counsel instead of limiting them to appropriate forum rates. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in treating the TILA claim and the breach of contract claim as related for purposes of calculating attorney’s fees. It also upheld the finding that the class achieved meaningful success overall and that the court properly accounted for mixed results by excluding time devoted solely to the contract claim and applying a 15% across-the-board reduction. The court further rejected Fifth Third's overbilling objections, finding no clear error in the district court's handling of staffing and billing issues. The Sixth Circuit also upheld the use of D.C. Laffey rates for Tycko's work, finding it reasonable given the firm's role and early involvement in the litigation. However, it held that the district court abused its discretion by applying those higher rates to all class counsel without adequately explaining why such rates were justified beyond Tycko's work. Overall, the court affirmed the fee award in large part but vacated it in part and remanded for reconsideration of billing rates for non-Tycko counsel. In sum, the Sixth Circuit largely affirmed the district court's attorney's fee award but held that it erred in applying the higher Laffey rates to all class counsel. It vacated the award in part and remanded for recalculation using appropriate forum rates for firms other than Tycko. Based on the foregoing, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's calculation of the fee award in all respects except for the rates applied to firms other than Tycko. It thus vacated the award and remanded for the district court to apply the proper forum rates. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/tGLnjLuA1 GODADDY INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of GoDaddy Inc. (NYSE: GDDY) resulting from allegations that GoDaddy may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased GoDaddy securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/godaddy-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Children's Privacy Suit for $8.25MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Google and AdMob Google Inc. have agreed to an $8,250,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the tech corporations collected the personal information of children under 13 through Google Play apps without consent, in violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The $8.25 million Google Play class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 1, 2026. The settlement covers all United States residents who, at any time between April 1, 2015 and the present, were under 13 years old when they downloaded or otherwise used an application from the Google Play Store and allegedly had their personal information collected, used, or disclosed by the defendants. Court documents state that approximately 3.8 million to 10 million people are covered by the settlement. The court-approved website for the Google Play children's data settlement can be found at COPPAPrivacyClassAction.com. Google settlement class members who file a timely, valid form can receive a pro rata cash payment from the deal. The final amount of this cash payment will depend on the total number of claims filed, and court documents estimate that class members will receive $40 to $200 each. To file a Google Play Store settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the form. Class members who do not have a class member ID can obtain one by completing the online registration form on this page. The class action settlement website notes that class members who are under the age of 18 as of May 29, 2026 must have their claim forms submitted by a parent or legal guardian. All Google Play settlement claim forms must be submitted by September 14, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Google Play Store COPPA settlement following a hearing on September 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Google Play Store class action lawsuit claimed that Google and AdMob failed to obtain parental consent before collecting the personal information of children through downloaded applications for targeted advertising purposes, in violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and a handful of state privacy laws. [GN] GUESS INC: Employees' Retirement Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Barasch, et al. The case is styled as Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island, City Of Gainesville Consolidated Police Officers' & Firefighters' Pension Fund, Maso Capital Investments Limited, and Blackwell Partners LLC, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former stockholders of GUESS, INC. v. GUESS, INC., PAUL MARCIANO, MAURICE MARCIANO, CARLOS ALBERINI, ANTHONY CHIDONI, and ALEX YEMENIDJIAN, Case No. 2026-0743-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., June 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Corporate Context." Guess, Inc. -- https://www.guess.com/ -- is an American clothing company, notable for its black-and-white advertisement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Mark D. Richardson, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com mrichardson@labaton.com GUZMAN Y GOMEZ CORP: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guzman y Gomez Corp. The case is styled as Monica Martinez, Yomira Gomez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Guzman y Gomez Corp., Case No. 1:26-cv-06094 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for the Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act. Guzman y Gomez (GYG) -- https://www.guzmanygomez.com/ -- is a fast-casual Mexican restaurant chain founded in Sydney in 2006 by Steven Marks and Robert Hazan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq. 420 E Waterside Dr., #3004 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (818) 600-5535 Email: sh@haseeblegal.com HANS HUFSCHMID: Freiberg Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hans Hufschmid. The case is styled as Greg Freiberg, and all others similarly situated v. Hans Hufschmid, Albert Centofante, Andrea Dulberg, August Nunziata, Ayman Hindy, Ira Rosenblum, Xonar Technology Inc., Case No. 2026-0663-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., May 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract." Hans Hufschmid is the Chairman and CEO at Xonar Technologies -- https://www.xonar.com/ -- specializes in intelligent security systems, utilizing a multi-sensor, AI-powered platform that enhances physical security screening.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Lemon, Esq. Andrew Dupre, Esq. Alberto E. Chavez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP-DELAWARE 222 Delaware Ave Ste 1710 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 596-9200 Email: alberto.chavez@akerman.com HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL: Slack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hard Rock International (USA), Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Slack, Frederick Salinas, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hard Rock International (USA), Inc., Hard Rock Cafe International (Hollywood), Case No. 26CUB01934 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hard Rock -- https://www.hardrock.com/ -- is a global leader in entertainment, gaming, and hospitality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com HISHAM SOLIMAN: Schwarz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hisham Soliman M.D., Inc. The case is styled as Steven Schwarz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hisham Soliman M.D., Inc., Case No. 26CV013200 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort." Hisham Soliman is a well-known psychiatrist who serves the Sacramento, Folsom, and Roseville California areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ray S. Seilie, Esq. KINSELLA HOLLEY ISER KUMP STEINSAPIR LLP 11766 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 750 Los Angeles, CA 90025-6543 Phone: 310-566-9800 Email: rseilie@khiks.com I.A.C. INC: Benegas Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Cesar Benegas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-00908 (D. Conn., June 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant as a result of the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personally identifiable information and failure to timely report the Data Breach. On February 24, 2025, Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") stored thereon in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach has impacted 79,216 of Defendant's current and former clients. On or around May 28, 2026, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter to notify him of the Data Breach ("Notice Letter"). The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Private Information misuse. In failing to adequately protect its clients' information, and by failing to adequately notify them about the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of its current and former clients. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Private Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former client of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. IAC states it is the "#1 lender" within the "credit challenged pool of consumers" on the East Coast.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com INNOVATION SPECIALTIES: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovation Specialties. The case is styled as Ivania Hernandez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Innovation Specialties, Case No. 26STCV16497 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Innovation Specialties -- https://www.innovation-line.com/ -- is one of the most trusted suppliers of Promotional Products located in Culver City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com IRIDEX CORPORATION: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Gibbons Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON GIBBONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. IRIDEX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03471-BJC-VET (S.D. Cal., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy. Defendant Iridex Corporation owns and operates the Website -- www.iridex.com -- where it sells medical equipment and technology. The complaint relates that the Defendant has partnered with at least one registered California data broker, Demandbase, Inc. ("Demandbase"), an entity headquartered in San Francisco, California, in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. Defendant has done this by installing code and tools proprietary to Demandbase on the Website. Defendant also partnered with at least one advertising platform and social media company, Meta, to accomplish such goals, by installing Meta code on the Website. The Demandbase and Meta code deployed on the Website is designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses transmitted from the devices of visitors to a website on which it is deployed. The process initiated by the Demandbase and Meta code identifies visitors through "browser fingerprinting." Fingerprinting allows data brokers like Demandbase and social media companies such as Meta, to ascertain the identity of a website visitor by plotting hundreds of personal identifiers, including the visitor's geolocation, device information, identification and cross-referencing of malicious cookies installed on the visitor's devices, and other traits evident from the visitor's browsers. The Plaintiff was subjected to the Demandbase code starting when he requested that the Website load on his device on March 18, 2026. Defendant's surreptitious and unlawful transfer of personal information through the code on its Website diminished Plaintiff's and Class members' ability to participate in that market on informed terms, including to exercise the choice of whether to withhold, limit, or exchange their personal data for value. Defendant's invasion of the privacy of Plaintiff and Class members damaged them and they are therefore entitled to compensatory damages, which includes monetary damages, says the suit. Plaintiff Brandon Gibbons is a citizen of California residing and located within the Southern District of California. Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. DOE Defendants 1 through 10 are unknown entities that Defendant directed and controlled to participate in implementing or maintaining Defendant's system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com JANNEY MONTGOMERY: Underpays Interest to Customers, Corkum Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE CORKUM and MARTIN PESCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03944 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2026) arises out of Janney's under-payment of interest to its own customers in its cash sweep program. Defendant Janney Montgomery Scott LLC is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser and broker-dealer and is a member of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"). The complaint relates that at issue in this complaint are two ways in which Janney does business. The first is acting as an investment adviser registered with the SEC. The second is as a broker-dealer. When acting as a broker-dealer, the Defendant owes duties to act in the best interests of its clients. However, Janney breached and continues to breach its contractual obligations by creating and operating the Cash Sweep Program to enrich itself at the expense of its customers, while failing to pay reasonable rates of interest on its clients' cash deposits. Janney was required but failed to put its customers' interests ahead of its own in engineering, operating, maintaining, and recommending the Cash Sweep Program. Janney was also required to pay reasonable rates of interest to its clients, adjusted accordingly based on prevailing market conditions. But the rates paid by Janney were unreasonable even in a low interest rate environment and were far less than rates offered by competing sweep accounts. Moreover, the rates of interest paid to Janney customers were net of "fees" or the rates of interest paid by the Program Banks to Janney. These "fees" that the Defendant reaped off of its customers' cash were significantly higher than the rate of interest paid to those customers, asserts the complaint. The complaint further notes that the Defendant has not secured or paid a reasonable rate of interest to its customers, including Plaintiffs and the Classes. The Cash Sweep Program has paid well below the prevailing or market interest rates. Defendant's rates of interest in the Cash Sweep Program were also below objective measures of reasonableness, including the leading indicators set forth above. These benchmarks demonstrate that the rates of interest in the Cash Sweep Program were not fair or reasonable, and did not properly take into account economic and market conditions, despite Janney's contractual promise that it would do so. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Classes suffered damages by receiving far lower interest payments than they would have received if Janney had adjusted rates in accordance with economic conditions and the sweep interest rates were reasonable or fair, says the suit. As a direct and proximate consequence of Janney's conduct, the Plaintiffs and the other Class members suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. They seek disgorgement of any undue and unjust gains of Janney, punitive damages, as well as all other equitable relief deemed just and proper. Plaintiff Michelle Corkum is a citizen of Pennsylvania, who maintains an individual brokerage account at Janney. Plaintiff Martin Pesce is a citizen of Philadelphia, who maintained an advisory individual retirement account ("IRA") at Janney.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (610) 842-5801 E-mail: macciavatti@milberg.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9469 E-mail: Scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Website Illegally Collects Personal Info, Yun Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN YUN and ARUNA VISWESWARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03382 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a class action concerning Defendant JetBlue's surveillance of its customers, in violation of their privacy, to amass personal data that JetBlue in turn weaponizes by charging increased prices for flights. Defendant, JetBlue Airways Corporation is a major airline operator in the United States that touts its ability to provide low-cost travel options. Plaintiffs Christian Yun and Aruna Visweswara are JetBlue customers who have used Defendant's website, www.jetblue.com to search for and book flights, and compare flight prices. The complaint relates that unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, JetBlue collects and tracks individuals' online activity to amass troves of individuals' highly sensitive identifying personal data ("PII") including name, connected accounts, email address, and internet protocol ("IP") address. Specifically, JetBlue uses tracking technology embedded in its source code that allows third parties to eavesdrop on, collect, retain, and use individuals' PII, without their knowledge or consent. The existence of the trackers used by Defendant and exploited by third parties on JetBlue's website is a breach of consumers' privacy, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiffs and Class Members were not aware of JetBlue's surreptitious surveillance pricing or JetBlue's use of their personal information to set -- and increase -- prices for flights they searched for and purchased through JetBlue's website. As such, Defendant has blatantly invaded or allowed for the invasion of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy rights, says the suit. Plaintiffs seek to recover for these harms under federal, state, and common law causes of action, pursuing actual damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. Gloria J. Medina, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212-907-0700 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dimazzeo@labaton.com gmedina@labaton.com JP MURPHY MANAGEMENT: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.P. Murphy Management, Inc. The case is styled as Rubi A. Mercado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.P. Murphy Management, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE066501 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., May 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." J.P. Murphy, Inc. -- https://jpmurphyinc.com/ -- founded by James P. Murphy in 1997, is a heavy construction company based in Ft. Myers, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com KEYMARK CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Tyler Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER TYLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYMARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01183-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiff and the class all earned wages due to them. The complaint relates that as part of Defendant's hiring process, it requires employees at its factory in Fonda to complete an orientation that includes essential safety training and other subjects. Upon completion of the orientation, Factory Workers start the hands-on training portion of their first day working for Defendant. Although the Factory Workers work over 40 hours a week, including during their hiring weeks, Defendant excludes their training time and pay from their total hours for overtime purposes. As a result, Defendant did not lawfully provide its employees with the full value of their overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Additionally, Defendant requires Factory Workers to work 12-hour shifts. Defendant, however, does not pay their minimum-wage-earning Factory Workers spread-of-hours pay, in violation of the NYLL and the Miscellaneous Industry Wage Order. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seek recovery of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs to be paid by Defendant as provided by the NYLL. Plaintiff Christopher Tyler was employed by Defendant as a Factory Worker, specifically a Material Handler, from about February through December 2025. Defendant Keymark Corporation is a full-service, aluminum-extrusion company with in-house finishing capabilities including: anodizing, casting, extruding, extrusion die construction, painting, thermal barrier, thermal strut, and custom packaging. Defendant manufactures custom and stock extrusions/profiles, for use in several industries, from their facilities in Fonda, New York and Lakeland, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Raphael Katri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 940-2034 E-mail: rkatri@gmail.com KLOECKNER METALS: Hallisey Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ga. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as STEVEN HALLISEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 26EV003810, was removed from the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03229-VMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts factual allegations and claims against Defendant arising out of a data security incident experienced by Defendant in February 2026. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendant collected and stored personally identifiable information from Plaintiff and the putative class and suffered a cyberattack between February 17, 2026 and February 23, 2026 in which a threat actor gained access to Plaintiff's and putative class members' PII. Plaintiff alleges that he received notice of the Data Incident from Defendant on or after April 10, 2026. Defendant Kloeckner Metals Corporation is a steel and metal distributor based in Roswell, Georgia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher A. Wiech, Esq. Chelsea M. Lamb, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309-7676 Telephone: 404-946-9814 E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com clamb@bakerlaw.com LIFE PROTECT: Underpays Company Employees, Watts Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KIZZIE WATTS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE PROTECT 24/7, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00571 (E.D. Va., June 5, 2026) is a class action seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). The complaint relates that the Defendant hired Plaintiff and the proposed Classes to help with operations, "including everything from sales, to customer and technical support for our clientele." Defendant typically required Plaintiff to work an 8-hour shift (e.g., 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. with a 1-hour lunch break), Monday through Friday and at least every other Saturday. Thus on a typical workweek, Plaintiff exceeded 40 hours of work. However, Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the Classes for pre and post shift work in several different respects. In most weeks worked, Plaintiff and the Classes worked at least 40 hours, excluding the uncompensated pre- and post-shift working time. Thus, in a typical workweek, Plaintiff and the Classes would not be compensated for approximately two hours or more of overtime each week as a result of the uncompensated pre- and post-shift work, in violation of FLSA and VOWA. The Defendant has acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA and VOWA provisions by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the proposed Classes at the overtime rate of 150% of their regular rates of pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the suit. Plaintiff Kizzie Watts has been employed as a Customer Service Representative by Defendant since approximately December 2022. Defendant Life Protect 24/7, Inc. is a medical monitoring company that provides customer service and monitoring for its 24-hour medical alert systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com MCKESSON CORP: True Health Appeals Denied Cert. Order to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled True Health Chiropractic, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed their operative putative class action complaint on July 18, 2014, alleging that the Defendants sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On Aug. 13, 2019, the Court entered its Order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiffs' First Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's class-certification rulings, holding that the Hobbs Act does not require a federal court to follow the FCC's interpretations of the TCPA, that the Amerifactors Bureau Ruling in particular is not binding on this Court, and that this Court should interpret the TCPA's definition of "telephone facsimile machine" using "ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation." On Jan. 22, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed second renewed motion for class certification. On May 22, 2026, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class certification. The Court agrees that stretching the definition of a "telephone facsimile machine" to include a cloud-based system of devices that theoretically can print because they have an Internet connection does not constitute a "fair reading" of the TCPA. Because the Court concludes that an "online fax service" does not qualify as a "telephone facsimile machine," and the parties do not dispute that there is no class-wide mechanism to disaggregate class members who received the allegedly unsolicited faxes via online fax services, individualized issues predominate, and class action treatment is not the superior method of adjudication. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The appellate case is styled as True Health Chiropractic, Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-3644, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Glenn L. Hara, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 Email: ghara@andersonwanca.com - and - Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com MDL 2905: ACU Consumer Litigation Transferred to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Products Liability Litigation," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers "Renteria, et al. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.," C.A. No. 1:26-00087 to the U.S. District of Delaware to the Central District of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge John A. Kronstadt for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In opposing transfer, STM argues that Renteria does not substantially overlap with the MDL contending that the latter involves defendants not named in the case and that the MDL is focused on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims. It also argues that the MDL contains allegations of concealed facts from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), whereas Renteria alleges that STM misled consumers. The MDL arises from allegations that airbag control units (ACUs) manufactured by ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW Automotive Inc., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc. are defective. Defendants in the litigation include, in addition to the ZF TRW defendants, manufacturers of the allegedly defective chip in the ACUs and manufacturers of vehicles in which the ACUs were installed. Renteria alleges that STM USA denied and downplayed their safety defects. Plaintiff alleges that STM conspired with the rest of the defendants to mislead NHTSA and consumers to avoid recalls of the same defective ACUs. The complaint includes claims under the same state consumer protection laws asserted in the operative consolidated class action complaint in the MDL. There is extensive overlap between Renteria's complaint and the MDL, hence consolidation should serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses. A full-text copy of the court's June 3, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bvxku2d MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over PC Games Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Max Rockman and Randall Moring filed a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. Why: Rockman and Moring claim Microsoft conspired with Valve Corp. to fix prices for personal computer (PC) games. Where: The Microsoft class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. Microsoft is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging it conspired with Valve, a video game developer, to fix prices for personal computer games. Plaintiffs Max Rockman and Randall Moring filed the class action complaint against Microsoft on May 31 in Washington federal court, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws. The lawsuit claims that Microsoft and Valve, the owner of the Steam PC game store, entered into agreements to match prices of PC games sold on their competing platforms. These agreements allegedly eliminated price competition and allowed both companies to maintain high prices for PC games. The Microsoft class action lawsuit alleges that both companies have been adhering to this price-fixing agreement since 2011, resulting in inflated prices for PC games and reduced game quality and choice for consumers. The plaintiffs argue that Microsoft, despite having the resources to compete with Steam, chose to join Valve’s cartel, depriving consumers of the benefits of competition, such as lower prices and unique content. Microsoft, Valve control 80% of PC game distribution market, plaintiffs claim The class action lawsuit claims that Microsoft and Valve together control at least 80% of the PC game distribution market in the United States, giving them significant power over the industry. The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft’s agreements with Valve not only prevented competition on price but also on game quality and content, establishing uniformity across the market. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who purchased PC games through the Microsoft Store or Steam on or after March 25, 2011. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, including treble damages, and an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from entering into or maintaining any price-fixing agreement with Valve or any other entity involved in the market for PC game distribution. The lawsuit also seeks a declaration that Microsoft’s price-fixing agreements with Valve violate federal and state antitrust laws. Earlier this year, five Illinois residents sued Microsoft for allegedly collecting and analyzing voice data from Teams without providing required notice under Illinois law. The plaintiffs are represented by Yue Serena Yang of Morrow Ni LLP and Will Bucher of Bucher Law PLLC. The Microsoft class action lawsuit is Rockman, et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-01876, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.[GN] MOLSON COORS: Martinez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00161 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC is a beverage company doing business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Ave., Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Telephone: (305) 506-4746 Email: vv@plgdamage.com MR. MIKE'S: Faces Mtanious Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- MIRNA MTANIOUS, ALANNA KOSIOLEK, ALEXANDRA LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MR. MIKE'S 2, LLC d/b/a Mr. Miguel's Mexican Grille and Cantina, MR. MIKE'S 3, LLC d/b/a Mr. Miguel's, STEVE SAVICH, and ROB SAVICH, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11905-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages and tips and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. Mr. Mike's 2, LLC, doing business as Mr. Miguel's Mexican Grille and Cantina, is a restaurant owner and operator in Michigan. Mr. Mike's 3, LLC, doing business as Mr. Miguel's, is a restaurant owner and operator in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jyarland Q. Daniels, Esq. Brian J. Farrar, Esq. Jennifer L. Lord, Esq. STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PC 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 644-1500 OLE BEN FRANKLIN: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ole Ben Franklin Motors. The case is styled as Lauren Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ole Ben Franklin Motors, Case No. 3:26-cv-00267 (E.D. Tenn., June 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ole Ben Franklin Motors -- https://www.olebenfranklinmotors.com/ -- is a car dealership in Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Cantu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omni Family Health. The case is styled as Rachel Cantu, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 26CUB02009 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network providing primary and preventative healthcare located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: 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 Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts 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 Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts Security Incident: What Happened? Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts (OSM), which operates locations in Norwood and Milton, Massachusetts and partners with a number of hospitals in the state, has disclosed a data breach in which sensitive information may have been copied by an unauthorized individual. According to a notice posted to the company's website, OSM first discovered suspicious network activity on January 15, 2026. An investigation into the suspected cyberattack revealed that patient and employee data related to OSM and Stephen Sand M.D. was potentially copied by an unauthorized agent between January 12 and January 15 of the same year. Concluding on June 8, a review of the data involved in the Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts data breach revealed that names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, patient identification numbers, medical account numbers, medical records, health insurance information, and other medical information may have been compromised. The information involved varies from person to person. Those who may have been impacted by the OSM data breach are being notified by mail. What You Can Do After the Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts 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 Orthopaedic Specialists of Massachusetts to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] PALACIO PALACIO: 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 Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman 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 Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman Security Incident: What Happened? Miami-based accounting firm Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman has reported a data breach involving sensitive personal information. In a report filed with the Vermont Attorney General's Office on June 10, 2026, it was disclosed that the Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman data breach may have compromised Social Security numbers. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the nature or scope of the cybersecurity incident was available. Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman offers accounting services for individuals and businesses across a range of industries. What You Can Do After the Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman 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 Palacio, Palacio & Zimmerman 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] PARADISE EXTERIORS: Esher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradise Exteriors LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Esher, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paradise Exteriors LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80665-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Paradise Exteriors -- https://www.paradiseexteriors.com/ -- is Florida's top rated roofing company and window installer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Scott Shipp, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RYAN S. SHIPP 814 W. Lantana Road, Suite 1 Lantana, FL 33462 Phone: (561) 699-0399 Email: ryan@shipplawoffice.com PARK PICTURES: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adam De Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARK PICTURES, LLC a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV17732 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06147. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following causes of action on a class wide basis: Failure to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com PORTA VIA CALABASAS: Curiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porta Via Calabasas, LLC. The case is styled as Laureano Curiel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Porta Via Calabasas, LLC, Case No. 26STCV17120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Porta Via Calabasas -- https://portaviarestaurants.com/calabasas/ -- is a California cuisine bistro and bar, offers a blend of expertly crafted dishes, including fresh salads, pasta, seafood, and mor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com REDWOOD COMMUNITIES: Brewster Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mason Brewster, individually, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. REDWOOD COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CU00615 was removed from the Superior Court, in the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-02402. The Complaint brings claims for Violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (Unpaid Overtime Wages); and Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (Unpaid Minimum Wages).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John Collingwood Seals, Esq. Mark Phillips, Esq. SEALS PHILLIPS LLP 301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 626.240.0632 Facsimile: 626.240.0700 Email: collin@sealsphillips.com mark@sealsphillips.com ROADIE INC: Bickum Sues Over Failure for All Hours Worked --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bickum and Thomas Popov, individually, and on behalf of other members of the proposed class similarly situated v. ROADIE, Inc.; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 26CV192593 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked at required rate; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide itemized wage statements; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; waiting time penalties; and Unfair Business Practices. In misclassifying its delivery drivers, the Defendant denies these purported contractors the benefits and protections provided to employees under California labor law. The Defendant misclassifies these drivers intentionally in order to avoid reimbursing them for work-related expenses and to avoid paying the drivers for all forms of compensation and benefits required by law. The Defendant willfully engaged in its misclassification of Plaintiffs and its other California delivery drivers, as it knew: its the Defendant delivery drivers were not free from the control and direction of the Defendant, its the Defendant delivery drivers performed work within the usual course of the Defendant's business as a delivery provider, and its the Defendant delivery drivers were not engaged in an independently established delivery business. The Defendant pays Plaintiffs and its other California drivers for only a portion of the time performing deliveries. This payment scheme results in the failure to pay all wages required by law through various means. the Defendant also fails to provide Plaintiffs and its other California delivery drivers the itemized wage statements required under California law, thereby concealing from the Defendant delivery drivers features of its compensation that are unlawful. As a result, Plaintiffs and other California the Defendant delivery drivers cannot readily identify and attempt to resolve the multiple ways that their wage payments do not comply with the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a delivery driver in 2023 in California. Roadie is a delivery service company that employs delivery drivers to transport goods from warehouses and/or stores to customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven M. Tindall, Esq. Ashleigh A. Musser, Esq. E. Wynne Tidwell, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Email: smt@classlawgroup.com aam@classlawgroup.com ewt@classlawgroup.com - and - Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Brian Corman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Email: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com bcorman@cohenmilstein.com ROBERT GREENBERG: FMI Common Stock Files Suit in Del Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Greenberg, et al. The case is styled as FMI Common Stock Fund, City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System, Hui Du, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert Greenberg, 3G Capital Partners L.P., 3G Fund VI, L.P., David Weinberg, Greenberg Family Trust, Katherine Blair, Michael Greenberg, Michael Greenberg Trust, Morton Erlich, Richard Siskind, Skechers Voting Trust, Yolanda Macias, Zulema Garcia, Case No. 2026-0698-KSJM (Del Chancery Ct., May 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Breach of Fiduciary Duty in the Corporate Context. Robert Greenberg is the CEO of 3G Capital Partners L.P., -- https://www.3g-capital.com/ -- a global investment firm and private partnership built on an owner-operator approach to investing over a long-term horizon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay ST, Ste. 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Spencer Davis Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: scampbell@msdlegal.com ROBLOX CORP: Mukherjee Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAURAV MUKHERJEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, DAVID BASZUCKI, and NAVEEN K. CHOPRA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05489 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Roblox's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Roblox common stock at artificially inflated prices between October 30, 2025, and April 30, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that Roblox would see a significant slowdown in its growth rates as enrollment in the age verification rollout would quickly taper, compounding the resulting slowdown in on-platform communication, resulting in app store rating reductions and a swift reduction in organic growth. When the truth emerged, the price of Roblox's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $55.26 per share on April 30, 2026, Roblox's stock price fell to $45.13 per share on May 1, 2026, a decline of about 18.33% in the span of just a single day. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Roblox Corporation is a video game developer based in San Mateo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com ROWAN UNIVERSITY: Das Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Riya Das, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. ROWAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. GLO-L-000716-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, New Jersey, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06685. The Complaint asserts minimum wage and overtime claims against Rowan under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). Specifically, in Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on her behalf and on behalf of "FLSA Collective Members" for alleged "Minimum Wage Violation of the FLSA." In Count II, Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged "Overtime Violation of the FLSA."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: William K. Kennedy, Esq. MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP LibertyView 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 600 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Phone: (856) 488-7700 Email: wkennedy@mmwr.com RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Heidel Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Colette Heidel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RYDER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-10417-4 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05600. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") that attempted to substitute Plaintiff's actual employer but misstated the entity's name as "Ryder Transportation Services, LLC" rather than "Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC." Later that same day, Plaintiff corrected this misnomer by filing the operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which names Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC as Defendant. The SAC asserts eight causes of action on behalf of a putative class: failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful withholding of wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. April Rheaume, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com stavos@justicelawcorp.com arheaume@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: KC Hovda, Esq. Christopher Riley, Esq. MILLER NASH LLP 605 5th Ave S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.624.8300 Facsimile: 206.340.9599 Email: kc.hovda@millernash.com christopher.riley@millernash.com - and - Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Tim M. Wojcik, Esq. Andrew B. Workman, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 S. Flower St., Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-457-8000 Facsimile: 213-457-8080 Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com twojcik@reedsmith.com aworkman@reedsmith.com S&H MACHINE INC: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against S&H Machine, Inc. The case is styled as Marvin Rosales, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. S&H Machine, Inc., Case No. 26STCV16564 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." S&H Machine, Inc. -- https://shmachine.com/ -- create the highest quality parts for commercial aviation, defense, spacecraft, high-pressure pumps and precision machinery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com SACRAMENTO FOOD BANK: Timothee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services. The case is styled as Natassia Timothee, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services, Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 26CV013762 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort." Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services (SFBFS) -- https://www.sacramentofoodbank.org/ -- is dedicated to assisting those in need by alleviating their immediate pain and problems and moving them toward self-sufficiency and financial independence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melanie Monroe, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: mmonroe@fmfpc.com SEATGEEK INC: Scruggs Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SeatGeek, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Scruggs, and all others similarly situated v. SeatGeek, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00384-CWR-LGI (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. SeatGeek -- https://seatgeek.com/ -- is a ticketing platform headquartered in New York City that enables users to buy and sell tickets for live sports, concerts, and theater events through its website and mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben David Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Fax: (949) 209-0303 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com SED PHARMA INC: Thompson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SED Pharma Inc., et al. The case is styled as Travis Thompson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SED Pharma Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2616034 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., May 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." SED Pharma -- https://sedpharma.com/ -- is a comprehensive equipment supplier that provides packaging and production machinery to the pharmaceutical and biotech industry worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING: Price-Booker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cadarius Price-Booker, and others similarly situated v. Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc., Case No. 26STCV16458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. -- https://www.silverado.com/ -- is a privately held company specializing in memory care assisted living, hospice care, at-home care, and life care management for individuals with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lewy body, and other dementias.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Paul K. Haines, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: sblakely@haineslawgroup.com phaines@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com SINGING RIVER HEALTH: Roussel Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Singing River Health System. The case is styled as Thierry Roussel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Singing River Health System, Case No. 1:26-cv-00168-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., June 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Singing River -- https://singingriverhealthsystem.com/ -- is a community-owned, not-for-profit healthcare system serving the Mississippi Gulf Coast.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zakary Dixon Pearsall, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP - Birmingham 2-20th Street North, Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 870-9989 Email: zpearsall@qcwdr.com SOHO INTERNATIONAL: Smith Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soho International Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shantae Smith, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Soho International Group, LLC doing business as: Soho Kitchen and Cocktails; Dartez Lorenzo Daniel; Angelena Selie; Case No. 1:26-cv-03003-SEG (N.D. Ga., May 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. Soho International Group, LLC doing business as Soho Kitchen and Cocktails offer a wide range of cocktails, beers and spirits along with wine/champagne lists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan Patrick Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com SONESTA INT'L: Westman Sues Over Toxic Fragrances at Facilities --------------------------------------------------------------- TINA WESTMAN and TALLIE CRAIGO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03112 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in its facilities despite Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant offers lodging facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiffs, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals, asserts the complaint. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of synthetic fragranced consumer products, Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. The Representative Plaintiffs contends that the effects of these Synthetic fragranced consumer products adversely affect all human beings but, for those with recognized disabilities such as fragrance/chemical and/or multiple chemical sensitivities, autism, and so on, the fear, apprehension and emotional distress alone of coming into contact with fragrance can be intense, as are the physiological manifestations predictably attendant to the exposure, says the suit. Accordingly, the Representative Plaintiffs bring this action, individually, and on behalf of the Class of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities. They seek injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Tina Westman and Plaintiff Tallie Craigo are natural persons with physical condition rendering them unable to patronize, visit and/or enjoy the full and equal access to Defendant's Facilities. Defendant Sonesta International Hotels Corporation is a business that maintains lodging facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com E-mail: mtf@colevannote.com E-mail: LegalDept@colevannote.com STARBUCKS CORP: Quebec Judge OKS Suit Over Unfair Coffee Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lofaro of CTV News reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit that alleges major coffee chains charged unfair prices for alternatives to cow's milk. The Montreal lawyer for the plaintiff said the practice is a clear case of "price gouging" customers who can't or choose not to drink regular milk and opt for other options, like soy, almond and oat milk. "I think it's unfair, I think it's egregious, and that's why we wanted to hold them accountable," said Joey Zukran, a lawyer at LPC Avocats. According to the ruling handed down on Wednesday, June 17, Starbucks admitted that it incurs an additional $0.12 for substituting cow's milk for a non-dairy option, while it charges the customer $0.80 for the alternative. "By its own admission, Starbucks therefore charges consumers more than six times the cost it incurs when it replaces cow's milk with plant-based or lactose-free milk in its beverages," explained Superior Court Justice Catherine Martel in her judgment. "Indeed, it does not appear frivolous or manifestly unfounded to argue that it is disproportionate to charge the consumer more than six times what it costs the merchant to substitute cow's milk with plant-based milk in their tea or coffee, and that this disproportion is sufficiently significant to cause serious harm to the consumer." The class-action lawsuit names Starbucks, Tim Hortons, and Second Cup as defendants. The plaintiff is Liel Ohayon, a Montreal resident who is vegan and a regular customer of Starbucks and Tim Hortons, who took issue with the fact that her drink of choice -- a matcha latte -- would cost $6 at Second Cup and Starbucks with cow's milk but $6.80 with soy or oat milk. Zukran told CTV News that it will be up to the judge to decide whether or not charging six times its cost amounts to abuse under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. "Individually, it might not appear as an astronomical level, but when you take the total sales figures on an aggregate basis for all coffees or beverages sold across Quebec, for which a non-dairy substitute was added at a cost of 80 cents per item, well, that could be an amount in the millions of dollars, potentially," he said. The class-action lawsuit includes all consumers in Quebec who paid a premium for non-dairy milk in their beverage at Starbucks (between Dec. 30, 2021 and Nov. 7, 2024), Second Cup (between Dec. 30, 2021 and Feb. 27, 2025), and Tim Hortons (between Dec. 30, 2021 and Jan. 2, 2025). In the fall of 2024, Starbucks announced it was no longer charging customers an extra fee for non-dairy milk. Tim Hortons followed suit in January 2025, and Second Cup did the same the following month. Zukran said these companies should still be held liable for their previous business practices and that, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, it could set a precedent and encourage other coffee shop brands to take similar action. [GN] SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Ortiz Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Veronica Ortiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV13683 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06121. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 8 causes of action for: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Hazel U. Poei, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com TBD BRANDS: Klos Sues Over Mislabeled YoPup Product --------------------------------------------------- VERONICA KLOS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TBD BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03456 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its false and deceptive advertising and labeling of its YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups. The complaint relates that the Defendant has marketed, labeled, advertised, and sold its YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups to consumers with packaging that has prominently and unequivocally represented that they contain yogurt. The Products' packaging states, in bold print, that the products are "Frozen Yogurt Cups". However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Products do not contain yogurt, as defined under federal regulations, and as consumers commonly understand the term. Had Plaintiff known that the Product does not contain yogurt, she would not have purchased the Product, or she would have paid less for it. Thus, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant's misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive practices, says the suit. For this reason, the Plaintiff and the members of the Classes seek actual damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the law. Plaintiff Veronica Klos purchased the Product from a Petco in Brooklyn, New York in August 2025. Defendant TBD Brands, LLC is a manufacturer and marketer of the YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - Lisa T. Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com TEA LIVING INC: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Erwin, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TEA LIVING, INC., d/b/a TEA COLLECTION, Case No. 26-2-04081-31 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01966. The Plaintiff contends that Tea Collection violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), by sending emails "featuring subject lines which employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in consumers' minds—and ultimately, from consumers' wallets."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 424.204.4400 Email: brooksm@ballardspahr.com TELEBRANDS CORP: Fratis Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Fratis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TELEBRANDS CORP. dba BULBHEAD, Case No. 26CV011005 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02103-AC. The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring two causes of action, for: violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engages in false reference pricing by advertising its Copper Pocket Hose products on www.pockethosecopper.com, www.copperbullethose.com, and www.getcopperhead.com using strikethrough "regular" prices and corresponding "limited-time" discounts of 50% to 62% off, when the Products are allegedly never sold at the advertised "regular" price.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Peter J. Farnese, Esq. FARNESE P.C. 2555 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232 Email: pjf@farneselaw.com TEZERAKT LLC: Damey-Fernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tezerakt LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jules Damey-Fernandez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tezerakt LLC, Fitbit LLC, Case No. 26CV190846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Tezerakt, LLC -- https://tezerakt.pro/ -- offers innovative consulting, training, and support services to empower businesses in the USA.[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 TIKVAH-ETTA: Pledger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tikvah-Etta and Lazaer Israel Center for the Developmentally Disabled, et al. The case is styled as Dejanee Pledger, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Tikvah-Etta and Lazaer Israel Center for the Developmentally Disabled, Modern HR Inc., Case No. 26STCV15914 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Tikvah-Etta & Lazear Israel Center for the Developmentally Disabled (commonly known as ETTA) is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit organization that empowers individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (such as autism and Down syndrome).[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 TOO FAST INC: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Too Fast, Inc. The case is styled as Isauro Contreras, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Too Fast, Inc., Case No. 26STCV17134 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Too Fast Inc, operating as Too Fast Autoparts -- https://toofastautoparts.ca/ -- is North America's leading provider of aftermarket and OEM automotive parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com TUMI INC: Ahmed Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tumi, Inc. The case is styled as Yousuf Ahmed, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tumi, Inc., Case No. 2026-010412-CA-01 (Miami-Dade Cty., May 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Complaint. Tumi Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.tumi.com/ -- is a manufacturer of high-end suitcases and bags for travel based in Edison, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com UAG SOUTHBAY LLC: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UAG Southbay, LLC. The case is styled as Gilberto Rosales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. UAG Southbay, LLC, Case No. 26STCV15917 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." UAG Southbay, LLC is a company based in Torrance, California, that specializes in providing a range of services to its clients.[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 UNITED EDUCATION: Norris Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- PHYLICIA NORRIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. UNITED EDUCATION INSTITUTE D/B/A UEI COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01458 (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) arises out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided Defendant with their highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") in connection with the services Defendant provides. The Private Information includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses or other government identifications, and other sensitive data. On May 29, 2026, Defendant suffered a ransomware attack, causing the exfiltration of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. On May 30, 2026, the notorious ransomware cybercriminal group Termite claimed responsibility for the Data Breach and posted a screenshot of a sample of the leaked data. Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members. Moreover, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the earliest opportunity to mitigate their damages caused by the Data Breach by failing to immediately notify affected individuals. To date, Defendant has not notified Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach, or contacted or offered any remediation to the victims of this Data Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and the Class for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) invasion of privacy; and (iv) breach of fiduciary duty. Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services. Plaintiff Phylicia Norris, a resident and citizen of the State of Texas, is a Data Breach victim. Defendant United Education Institute d/b/a UEI College is a licensed and accredited institution of higher learning known as a career college.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com UNITED HEALTH: Ainsworth Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Janice Ainsworth, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare Inc., Case No. 26C513 was removed from the Davidson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00687 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 150 4th Avenue North, Suite 430 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 928-9901 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Tao, Esq. E. Todd Presnell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2247 Email: atao@bradley.com tpresnell@bradley.com UNITED HEALTH: Total Care Dental Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Total Care Dental and Orthodontics, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare Inc., Case No. 26C631 was removed from the Davidson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00688 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 313-9000 Email: mchalos@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Tao, Esq. E. Todd Presnell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2247 Email: atao@bradley.com tpresnell@bradley.com UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Lewis Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carrie L. Lewis, Joshua A. Sharps, Richard D. Dorsey, Ruth Kunkle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General Indemnity Company, Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CU020863C was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03220-AJB-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. The United Services Automobile Association -- https://www.usaa.com/ -- is an American financial services company providing insurance, including personal property and casualty and life insurance, and banking products exclusively to members of the military, veterans and their families.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. Wyatt A. Lison, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-8400 Fax: (412) 281-1007 Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com wlison@fdpklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas Eugene Hewlett, Jr., Esq. John S. Purcell, Esq. ArentFox Schiff, Esq. 555 South Flower Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-7571 Fax: (213) 629-7401 Email: douglas.hewlett@arentfox.com john.purcell@afslaw.com UNITED STATES SECURITIES: Hardin Files Suit in D. Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The case is styled as Corey Hardin, Chase Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 1:26-mc-00083-LLA (D.D.C., May 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions or Motion to Compel. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission is an independent agency of the United States federal government, created in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of 1929.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey Stoughton, Esq. SELENDY & GAY, PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Phone: (212) 390-9036 Email: cstoughton@selendygay.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Right Steps Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Right Steps LLC and Alala LLC on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, CHANGE HEALTCHARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, AND OPTUM PAY, Case No. 26CV003623 was removed from the South Carolian Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for District of South Carolina on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02256-CMC. Although the Complaint does not specify the precise amount of damages sought, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs was unable to submit claims and receive payment for its medical care to patients, which disrupted the Plaintiffs' businesses. The Plaintiffs allege monetary losses including rejected and/or delayed payments for medical care.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle R. Hair, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28203-6818 Phone: (704) 444-1167 Email: kyle.hair@alston.com UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Federal Judge Rejects Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Hansen-White of KLCC reports that a federal judge has denied members of the University of Oregon's beach volleyball and club rowing team's efforts to give their Title IX lawsuit class action status. The athletes asked the Court of Appeals for a review Thursday, June 11, 2026. In his ruling late last month, United States District Judge Michael McShane said beach volleyball players had failed to demonstrate their experience was typical for all female athletes at UO. He said the problems the women allege, such as not having a full-time coach or having to practice off campus, and the program coming online in 2013, made their case unique. "Beach Volleyball Plaintiffs, unlike their fellow proposed class members, would need to address whether their participation in an 'emerging' varsity sport influences the merits of their Title IX claim," McShane wrote. He said he also did not believe the rowing team should be included in a class action. In the original lawsuit, the team's attorneys argued they should be added to the school's varsity roster to achieve gender parity with men's sports. "The Rowing Plaintiffs do not convince this Court that they have the abilities to participate in varsity athletics at the University, and therefore they are not being deprived of the opportunity to participate in varsity athletics." McShane wrote. "Their recorded rowing race times are substantially inferior to even the worst performing Division I rowing teams." Arthur Bryant, one of the attorneys for the athletes, told KLCC he believed the ruling is contrary to established Title IX practices. "The law is clear, they don't need to prove that to seek equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics for themselves or any other women's athletes," Bryant said. "If they're being deprived of the opportunity, that's the violation of Title IX, whether or not they have the talent to actually participate at the varsity level." He argued beach volleyball's alleged uniquely poor treatment also does not make them ineligible to seek relief for themselves or others. "This decision is truly disturbing and would essentially gut the ability of women athletes to bring Title IX actions," Bryant said. In their original 2023 lawsuit, the athletes said they were deprived of scholarships and appropriate facilities. They also argued women's sports university-wide receive less resources than men's. The University of Oregon has consistently denied the allegations of discrimination, and has said it's making progress on an on-campus beach volleyball facility. In their petition to appeal, another attorney for the athletes, Matthew Murray, argued McShane erred in his analysis and did not consider all the evidence presented. He also argued the race times the judge cited to dismiss rowers were cherry picked and not relevant to their claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will determine whether to allow the athletes to appeal their case. Over the next few weeks the University of Oregon will have a chance to weigh in on a potential appeal. [GN] VERACITY WELLNESS: Elazari Files Suit Over Product's False Ad ------------------------------------------------------------- SANNAM ELAZARI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERACITY WELLNESS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06276 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its deceptive marketing practices, in violation of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant is in the business of developing, manufacturing, packaging, promoting, advertising, and selling purported dietary supplement products under the brand name "Veracity". These dietary supplements include the Product, Metabolism Ignite capsules. Defendant markets the Product through a comprehensive and uniform advertising strategy across standardized channels, including packaging, online product pages, social media, and other promotional materials, using substantially similar messaging directed to consumers nationwide. However, in these advertisements, Defendant makes unsubstantiated, false, and/or misleading claims regarding the Product, asserts the complaint. Defendant's marketing is intentionally misleading, implying that the only difference between the Product and synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications, such as Ozempic, is that the Product does not have the same side effects as synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications. In reality, the Product does not contain a synthetic GLP-1 agonist and uses only natural ingredients, making it impossible for them to deliver the same results as synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications, the complaint says. Plaintiff purchased the Product relying upon the claims made by Defendant that its advertisements were backed up with reliable and valid scientific research. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid less for it, absent Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, says the suit. This action seeks damages for Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class for purchasing the Product as well as public injunctive relief to stop Defendants from fleecing Californians in the future. Plaintiff Sannam Elazari purchased Defendant's Product in February 2026 while in the State of California after noticing an advertisement on Instagram. Defendant Veracity Wellness Inc. makes and distributes dietary supplements, including the Product, throughout the United States and, specifically, to consumers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. CA Bar No.: 125961 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Matthew A. Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: msmith@classlawdc.com - and - Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: swatkins@peircelaw.com VICTRON ENERGY: Hernandez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Maritza Hernandez, individually and for others similarly situated v. VICTRON ENERGY, INC. and OMAR KUTKUT, Case No. 4:26-cv-00616-MJT (N.D. Ga., June 8, 2026), is brought to recover misappropriated tips and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants misappropriated the Plaintiff and other Tipped Workers' tips by forcing to participate in a tip pool with Management. The Defendants kept the Plaintiff and the Tipped Workers' tips in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers (as defined below) regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But Defendants do not pay their Overtime Workers for all overtime hours they work nor hours worked in excess. Instead, Defendants only paid the Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers for the 40 hours worked in the week, disregarding the Overtime and hours worked in excess. In fact, Defendants frequently capped the Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers' hours at 40 hours per workweek, despite them regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover the misappropriated and/or unpaid tips and other damages owed to him and to the other Tipped Workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Kitchen Staff worker. Victron is a fuel distributor headquartered in Waxahachie, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal VISION LANDSCAPE: Negrin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Landscapers ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS NEGRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION LANDSCAPE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., and SCOTT WHORRALL, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01934 (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a landscaper from approximately July 1, 2025, to March 10, 2026. Vision Landscape Services of Florida, Inc. is a full-service landscape management firm based in Bonita Springs, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com WALDORF=ASTORIA EMPLOYER: Daimon Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Daimon, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALDORF=ASTORIA EMPLOYER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV13782 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 8, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06209. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Defendants for the alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226(a).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq. Zoe V. Bays, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: +1.415.626.3939 Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700 Email: kitrummel@jonesday.com zbays@jonesday.com - and - Liat L. Yamini, Esq. Samantha Dyar, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452 Phone: +1.213.489.3939 Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 Email: lyamini@jonesday.com sdyar@jonesday.com WEST VIRGINIA: 4th Circuit Revives Foster Care System Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of JONATHAN R., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; ANASTASIA M., minor, by Next Friend, Cheryl Ord; SERENA S., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; THEO S., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GARRETT M., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GRETCHEN C., minor, by Next Friend, Cathy L. Greiner; DENNIS R., minor, by Next Friend, Debbie Stone; CHRIS K., CALVIN K., and CAROLINA K., minors, by Next Friend, Katherine Huffman; KARTER W., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; ACE L., minor, by Next Friend, Isabelle Santillion; and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PATRICK MORRISEY, in his official capacity as the Governor of West Virginia; ALEX J. MAYER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Human Services; CAMMIE CHAPMAN, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources; LORI BRAGG, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Bureau for Social Service; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. LAW SCHOLARS; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW AND 32 ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES; THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION; THE NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM; THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, Amici Supporting Appellants. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER; STATES OF ALASKA; ALABAMA; ARKANSAS; DELAWARE; FLORIDA; GEORGIA; IDAHO; IOWA; KANSAS; LOUISIANA; MISSISSIPPI; NEBRASKA; NEW HAMPSHIRE; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH CAROLINA; TEXAS, Amici Supporting Appellees. JONATHAN R., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; ANASTASIA M., minor, by Next Friend, Cheryl Ord; SERENA S., minor, by Next Friend, Sarah Dixon; THEO S., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GARRETT M., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; GRETCHEN C., minor, by Next Friend, Cathy L. Greiner; DENNIS R., minor, by Next Friend, Debbie Stone; CHRIS K.; CALVIN K., and; CAROLINA K., minors, by Next Friend, Katherine Huffman; KARTER W., minor, by Next Friend, L. Scott Briscoe; ACE L., minor, by Next Friend, Isabelle Santillion, Plaintiffs-Appellees, PATRICK MORRISEY, in his official capacity as the Governor of West Virginia; ALEX J. MAYER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Human Services; LORI BRAGG, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the Bureau for Social Services; CAMMIE CHAPMAN, in her official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. THE LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER; STATES OF ALASKA; ALABAMA; ARKANSAS; DELAWARE; FLORIDA; GEORGIA; IDAHO; IOWA; KANSAS; LOUISIANA; MISSISSIPPI; NEBRASKA; NEW HAMPSHIRE; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH CAROLINA; TEXAS, Amici Supporting Appellants. LAW SCHOLARS; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW AND 32 ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES; THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION; THE NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM; THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, Amici Supporting Appellees, Case Nos. 25-1232, 25-1239 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting West Virginia's motion for summary judgment. The appeal arose from a long-running lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of foster children in West Virginia against state officials. After previously reversing an earlier dismissal in Jonathan R. ex rel. Dixon v. Justice (Jonathan R. I), the Fourth Circuit reviewed a second dismissal of the case. The issue on appeal was whether the district court had the authority to grant the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiffs. On September 30, 2019, twelve children in foster care filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of West Virginia against five defendants, including Governor Jim Justice and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR). At the time, DHHR served as the legal guardian for children in the state's foster care system. Following a government reorganization, responsibility for the foster care system was transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Plaintiffs sought to represent a General Class of approximately 6,800 children who were in West Virginia's foster care custody when the lawsuit was filed. They also proposed three subclasses: a Kinship Subclass for children placed with relatives, an ADA Subclass for children with disabilities, and an Aging Out Subclass for children over age 14 who were approaching transition out of the foster care system. The Plaintiffs alleged widespread deficiencies within West Virginia's foster care system, including high rates of child abuse and neglect, inadequate foster placements, understaffing, delays in case assessments, overreliance on institutional care, and failures to provide necessary physical and mental health services. They contended that these conditions violated their constitutional rights, including substantive due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as rights under the First and Ninth Amendments. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the state's practices violated several federal statutes, including the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief declaring that West Virginia's foster care practices violated their constitutional and statutory rights. They also requested broad injunctive relief requiring the state to assess and reform its foster care system, including conducting a statewide needs assessment, providing timely evaluations and individualized case plans for children entering care, ensuring access to needed services and treatment, placing children in safe and properly monitored settings, maintaining adequate staffing of qualified caseworkers, and developing a statewide reform plan subject to approval by a court-appointed monitor. In 2023, the district court dismissed the case, concluding that the claims of adopted Plaintiffs were moot and that the case was barred under Younger v. Harris and related abstention principles due to concerns about interference with ongoing state abuse and neglect proceedings. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that neither mootness nor abstention doctrines barred federal court review. On remand, the district court certified the Plaintiffs' General Class and ADA Subclass, but denied certification of the other two proposed subclasses. The parties then engaged in extensive discovery, including document production and 45 depositions, and the case was set for trial on May 6, 2025. In July 2024, West Virginia moved for summary judgment, but the district court did not rule on the motion. Instead, in late February 2025, it sua sponte dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), without providing notice or allowing further briefing. The court held that it lacked authority under Article III to grant the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs, finding that the claims failed the redressability requirement for standing. It also concluded that declaratory relief would not cure the standing defect. The Plaintiffs appealed the district court's sua sponte dismissal, seeking reversal and reassignment to a different judge. West Virginia urged the Fourth Circuit to affirm the dismissal based on the district court's redressability analysis or, alternatively, on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to establish injury in fact. West Virginia also filed a conditional cross-appeal requesting class decertification if the dismissal were reversed. The Fourth Circuit characterized the appeal as concerning the scope of federal court authority to intervene in state institutions to address alleged rights violations. The district court had grounded its dismissal on Article III standing requirements, concluding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. Under standing doctrine, plaintiffs must show an injury in fact, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, and that it is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs had Article III standing because their alleged injuries were redressable through the injunctive and declaratory relief sought, and at least one named plaintiff alleged an ongoing injury fairly traceable to West Virginia's conduct. The Court concluded that federal courts have authority to fashion appropriate relief if the Plaintiffs prevail, and that any tailoring of remedies should occur after resolution of the merits. It further found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded ongoing, redressable injuries and therefore satisfied all elements of standing. The Fourth Circuit also rejected the request to reassign the case to a different district judge, finding no evidence of bias, no indication the judge could not set aside prior rulings, and no appearance-of-justice concerns sufficient to warrant reassignment, especially given the case's length and proximity to trial. Finally, the Fourth Circuit held that its reversal eliminated the final judgment required for appellate review, rendering the class certification issues interlocutory and not properly before the court outside Rule 23(f)'s framework. Because the deadline to seek Rule 23(f) review had passed, the cross-appeal could not be considered at that time. The Court therefore reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/6MDNYINrV. ARGUED: Laura Welikson -- lwelikson@abetterchildhood.org -- A BETTER CHILDHOOD, New York, New York, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Michael Ray Williams -- michael.r.williams@wvago.gov -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Marcia Robinson Lowry -- marcia@abetterchildhood.org -- Julia K. Tabor -- jtabor@abetterchildhood.org -- Robyn Goldberg, John Hazelwood, David Baloche, A BETTER CHILDHOOD, New York, New York; Richard W. Walters -- rwalters@shafferlaw.net -- J. Alexander Meade, SHAFFER & SHAFFER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Nicholas Ward, DISABILITY RIGHTS OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. John B. McCuskey -- constituent@wvago.gov -- Attorney General, Holly J. Wilson, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Caleb B. David, Deputy Solicitor General, Frankie A. Dame, Assistant Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. J. Michael Showalter -- j.michael.showalter@afslaw.com -- Sarah L. Lode -- sarah.lode@afslaw.com -- Samuel A. Rasche -- Sam.Rasche@afslaw.com --ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amici the National Health Law Program, the Arc of the United States, the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the Center for Public Representation. Hannah Benton Eidsath -- hbenton@youthlaw.org -- Jean Strout -- jstrout@youthlaw.org. -- NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW, Oakland, California; Krishna Shah, San Francisco, California, Daniel Albert-Rozenberg, Boston, Massachusetts, Sydney Leigh Martin, Mauni Jalali, Los Angeles, California, Todd Anten -- toddanten@quinnemanuel.com -- Maura Grealish -- mgrealish@omm.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York, for Amici National Center for Youth Law and 32 Additional Organizations. Virginia M. Creighton -- creighton@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Amici Law Scholars. Reilly Stephens -- rstephens@libertyjustice-center.org -- LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, Austin, Texas; Joel S. Nolette -- jnolette@wiley.law -- WILEY REIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Liberty Justice Center. Treg Taylor -- attorney.general@alaska.gov -- Attorney General, Laura Fox -- laura.fox@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, Margaret Paton Walsh -- margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, Katherine Demerest -- kate.demarest@alaska.gov -- Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALASKA, Anchorage, Alaska, for Amicus State of Alaska. Steve Marshall -- constituentaffairs@alabamaag.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, Montgomery, Alabama, for Amicus State of Alabama. Tim Griffin -- oag@arkansasag.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Amicus State of Arkansas. Kathleen Jennings -- attorney.general@delaware.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, Delaware, for Amicus State of Delaware. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus State of Florida. Christopher M. Carr -- AGCarr@law.ga.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus State of Georgia. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IOWA, Des Moines, Iowa, for Amicus State of Iowa. Raúl Labrador -- AGLabrador@ag.idaho.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO, Boise, Idaho, for Amicus State of Idaho. Kris W. Kobach, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS, Topeka, Kansas, for Amicus State of Kansas. Liz Murrill -- constituentservices@ag.louisiana.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Amicus State of Louisiana. Lynn Fitch, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSISSIPPI, Jackson, Mississippi, for Amicus State of Mississippi. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, Lincoln, Nebraska, for Amicus State of Nebraska. John Formella -- attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Concord, New Hampshire, for Amicus State of New Hampshire. Drew Wrigley -- ndag@nd.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bismarck, North Dakota, for Amicus State of North Dakota. Alan Wilson, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amicus State of South Carolina. Ken Paxton -- ken.paxton@oag.texas.gov -- Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Austin, Texas, for Amicus State of Texas. WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Abdelmalak Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams-Sonoma, Inc. The case is styled as Merna Abdelmalak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc, Case No. CGC26637160 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Williams-Sonoma, Inc. -- https://www.williams-sonomainc.com/ -- is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com WILLOW HEALTH: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Wilce Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTY WILCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLOW HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05445 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action addressing Defendant's improper, unauthorized, and illegal disclosure of users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") to third-party advertising platforms and data analytics companies without those users' knowledge or consent. Defendant Willow Health Services, Inc. owns, maintains, and controls the web domains www.willowhealth.com www.startwillow.com and app.willowhealth.com along with related properties and subdomains (collectively the "Website"). The Defendant operates the Website as a telehealth platform that provides virtual weight loss consultations and prescription services for weight management medications. The Website is marketed as offering specialized weight loss programs with access to prescription medications like GLP-1 agonists for weight management solutions. According to the complaint, the Defendant has deployed on the Website the Pinterest Pixel, Taboola Pixel, TikTok Pixel, and Microsoft's tracking products, among other third-party tracking tools (collectively, the "Tracking Technology"). By installing and using these Tracking Technologies, developers, including those who created the Website or have been responsible for their maintenance and updates, embed these companies' technologies enabling comprehensive data collection regarding users' health information, quiz responses, and personal identifiers. On December 2024, while living and physically present in California, Plaintiff Wilce accessed the Website to search for GLP-1 treatment options. During this visit, Plaintiff Wilce completed the initial quiz process, which required her to input answers to sensitive questions including her weight, height, weight loss goals, medical history, and current medical regimen. At no point before or during this process did Plaintiff Wilce consent to her answers being recorded. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff's privacy rights were violated, and Plaintiff suffered harm in the form of receiving unwanted targeted advertisements related to her use of GLP-1 products, loss of control over her private health data, increased anxiety due to unknown parties accessing sensitive data, loss of the benefit of the bargain in keeping or exchanging her private data, and other harms related to the undisclosed and non-consenting transmission of PHI and PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class members, seeks all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Kristy Wilce is an adult citizen who lives, and at all relevant times has lived, in Woodlands, California and who used the Website in 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor Sandoval, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Ste 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: 562-534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com luke@alemidalawgroup.com ZILLOW GROUP: Breidert Sues Over Damages Following Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATT BREIDERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., JEREMY WACKSMAN, and JEREMY HOFMANN, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-2016 (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Zillow and certain of its top officials. The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zillow's agreement with Redfin 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. The truth began to emerge on September 30, 2025, when the FTC filed a complaint against Zillow and Redfin alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, causing Zillow's Common Stock prices to decline. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial, says the suit. Plaintiff Matt Breidert purchased Zillow Class C common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of the securities law violations. Defendants Zillow Group, Inc. is a real estate and rental marketplace offering a platform for buying, selling, renting, and financing homes. Defendant Jeremy Wacksman served as the Company's chief executive officer. Defendant Jeremy Hofmann served as the Company's chief financial officer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colin M. George, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 501-3544 E-mail: cgeorge@corrcronin.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF PONTIAC POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HENRY SCHUCK, CAMERON HYZER, JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER HAYS, TA ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, LP, THE CARLYLE GROUP, INC., and DO HOLDINGS (WA), LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-05739-TMC (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2026) is a securities fraud class action against the Defendant for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint relates that the Defendants took their private company public in an Initial Public Offering. In order to make sure the stock price soared, Defendants made a series of misleading statements about the Company's supposedly stellar financial results and sustainable customer growth. Taking Defendants at their word, investors poured money into the Company, raising its stock price dramatically. However, unbeknownst to those investors, Defendants knew all along that, rather than vetting customers' financial health and stability, the Company was conducting no due diligence whatsoever into the customers with which it was contracting to achieve its seemingly impressive revenue growth. As a result, the Company's growth depended on risky and unsustainable contracts, therefore leading to material overstatement of its financial results, adds the complaint. With the stock price artificially propped up by their continuing misstatements, Defendants unloaded tens of millions of shares of Company stock and reaped an exorbitant profit. After cashing in, the inevitable happened, relates the complaint. The risky and unsustainable contracts failed, and the Company was forced to disclose publicly that its stated financials were not as stellar as Defendants previously claimed. Indeed, the growth ZoomInfo had touted for years slowed down or turned negative. On this news, the stock price plummeted, causing misled investors to lose billions of their investments -- in this case, nearly 80% of shareholder value, says the suit. The complaint alleges that Defendants devised and carried out a textbook, insider trading-based securities fraud scheme. Plaintiffs purchased ZoomInfo common stock during the Class Period and suffered damages as a result of Defendants' fraud. They now seek to recover the losses that Defendants' scheme caused investors. Defendant ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a technology company that offers digital sales and marketing tools to businesses.[BN] The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. Joshua B. Selig, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com jselig@byrneskeller.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. Kaicheng Yu, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com nyu@labaton.com - and - Shawn Busken, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 282-0515 E-mail: Shawn.Busken@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov ********* 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 ***