260623.mbx

260623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 23, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 124 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Ebarle Suit Over ERISA Violations ABC LEGAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.5MM ADMA BIOLOGICS: Class Action Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations AHV HOLDINGS: Faces Pelaez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AIR-GP LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Phelps Amended to August 3 ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Giana Suit Over Copyright Infringement ALICE + OLIVIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to July 20 ALSTON & BIRD: Plaintiff Seeks Consolidation of Related Cases APPEARANZ INC: Secretly Adds Junk Fees Without Consent, Le Says APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Costa ARCADIA CONSUMER: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hayde AUTHENTEAK LLC: Morris Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BEYOND MEAT: Perrow Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty BIG BRAND: Class Cert Bid Filing in McPhee Suit Due June 3, 2027 BITGO HOLDINGS: Arsenault Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price BJ ACQUISITION: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BK COFFEE: Faces Najera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. BLACK GOLD: Cow Manure Contains PFAS, Class Action Suit Claims BLACKLANE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elmejjati Says BLOOM CHOICE: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BURGERS CORP: Lucero Seeks Unpaid RegulaR & OT Pay Under FLSA BYLT LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jerde Due Feb. 7, 2028 CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Feldman Says CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jatta Says CCS INTERVENTION: Class Cert. Filing in MacKenzie Due May 28, 2027 CEFE NO. 2 LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property CENTRAL MAINE: Discovery Issue Order Entered in Gagnon Suit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Oglesby Says CLARITY TELECOM: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pederson Alleges CLIFTON FORGE, VA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boyd Suit Alleges CLOUDFLARE INC: Handelsbanken Sues Over Recapitalization Proposal CLOUDFLARE INC: Mumme Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty COHN RESTAURANT GROUP: York Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COLUMBIA PACIFIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach COLUMBUS MANUFACTURING: Ventura Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMERCIAL APPLIANCE SERVICE: Haq Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY BUILDERS: Leonard Seeks Maintenance Technicians' OT Pay COMPEX LEGAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $872,500 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Bid Filing in George Due May 21, 2027 COTY INC: Chen Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge COTY INC: Srinivasan Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge CSI COMPANIES: Mora Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages CURRENEX INC: Edmar Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd CUSIP GLOBAL: Dinosaur Financial Allowed to Seal Class Cert Docs DAMERON HOSPITAL: Trejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DECKERS OUTDOOR: Norberg Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEL MONTE: Refuses to Refund Tariff Overcharges, King Claims DENTAQUEST GROUP: Banuelos Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. California DOUGLASS TRUCK BODIES: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid EARNEST OPERATIONS: Bradford Sues Over Alleged ECOA Violations EL POLLO LOCO: Avila Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELEVATED STEEL: Alvarez Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Settles Magnesium Class Action Suit for $1.84MM EVERLANE INC: Leers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FEDEX CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Almonte Due August 11 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Day Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA FLO HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Suit for $59.5MM FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Class Cert Filing in Merrell Due June 15, 2027 FORD MOTOR: Parties Must File Consolidated Class Cert Briefing FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA FOX CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Roku Inc. FRESHCUT PAPER: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FROST BANK: Delong Data Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. FUEL DELIVERY SERVICES: Lynch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. G.SKILL INT'L: Class Settlement in Hurd Suit Gets Final Nod GALLEGO SEAFOOD: Melendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GENEDX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 3 GERALD MACDONALD: Parshley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOLCHIN FOODS: Pagan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOPHER RESOURCE LLC: Evans Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS: Jones Files Suit in N.D. Georgia GRADY MEMORIAL: No Consent on Installed Tracking Tools, Suit Says GREEN KNIGHT: Whitfield Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 8 HART MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges HEAVEN HILL: Faces Palacio Suit Over Adulterated Lunazul Tequilas HILLCREST CONVALESCENT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit HOUSE OF BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HURON LODGE: Court Flexibly Defines Period in COVID-19 Class Suit HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 13, 2027 INSTRUCTURE INC: Costa Sues Private Data Breach on Canva IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach JACKPOCKET CASINO: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach JJ RESTAURATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Colina Alleges KNOCKAROUND LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges KRAMPADE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges L+M DEVELOPMENT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach LA LUZ DEL CAMINO: Sued Over Industrialized Immigration Factory LAS VEGAS: Agrees to Settle Ticket Class Action Lawsuit for $3MM LEASEFLORIDA HIALEAH: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People LEGACY CABINETS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice LIGHTHOUSE ESTATES: Cervantez-Tkac Seeks to Certify Class MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Avalos Says MAMMA MIA: Blind Consumers Can't Access Online Store, Morris Says MASSIMOS CONTRACTING: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL MASTEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burke Suit Alleges META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Modified to July 31 MEUNDIES INC: Intercepts Website Users' Personal Info, Gray Says MISSISSIPPI: Solicitation Law Unconstitutional, Black et al. Allege MONEYLION INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Interest Charges NANO-X IMAGING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit NETCREDIT: Castleberry Sues Over Alleged Unlawful Credit Denial NETLINE CORP: Regas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info NEW LOOK: Cervantes et al. Sue Over Sensitive Info Disclosure NEW YORK, NY: Jefferson Must File Class Cert Bid by June 25 NEW YORK: Wins Partial Denial of Cannabis Injunction OAK VIEW GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach OCHSNER CLINIC: Taylor Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint OPEN LENDING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to ANV Group Holdings OPTIMUM COMMUNICATIONS: Berger Seeks to Enjoin Tender Offer ORIGIN MATERIALS: Class Action Settlement in Soto Gets Final Nod OSANA CLEANING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gonzalez Due Nov. 10 OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Plaintiff's Bid to Remand Tossed w/o Prejudice PARTS AUTHORITY: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 9 PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Due August 7 PHILLIP GAYLEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ainsworth Alleges POLYPEPTIDE LABORATORIES: Removes Castillo Suit to C.D. Cal. PORT OF MORROW: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 6 POSHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Suit Says RADIAL INC: Schropp Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA RCI INTERNET: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Garcia Alleges REGAL CINEMAS: Maurer Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers RF INDUSTRIES: Hearing on Prelim OK of Settlement for August 7 RICOH USA: MTP Seeks to File Partial Summary Judgment Bid ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settlement Prelim. Approval Bid Due Sept. 8 RUAN TRANSPORT: Liquor Therapy Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi RYZE INC: Beltran Sues Over Illegal False Discount Scheme SAFECO INS: Faces McCombs Suit Over Systematic Breaches of Contract SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Faces Blomenkamp Suit Over Recycling Fees SAFEWAY INC: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Certify Classes Due May 15, 2027 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Farber Suit Says SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 22, 2027 SMITH & WESSON: Discovery in CIPA Securities Suit Underway SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Unlawful Loans SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Stallworth Seeks FLSA Collective Status SPECIFIC PROTECTION: Fact Discovery in Nelson Due Oct. 30 STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blakeney Alleges STRATEGIC EDUCATION: McCullough Balks at Unprotected Personal Info SUPPORT PETS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Product Marketing SUSAN HOWE: Montgomery Loses Bid to Certify Class SV SUPER: Ruben Wins Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-reply TAKARA SAKE: Class Action Settlement in Tunick Gets Final Nod TARGET CORP: Baby Wipes Contaminated With B. Cepacia, Suit Alleges TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks to Permanently Seal Part of Exhibit 3 TUFT & NEEDLE: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Action for $2.99M U.S. NEWS: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Mendoza Says ULTA SALON: Class Cert Bid Filing in Divens Due June 4, 2027 UNITED AMERICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Chang Suit UNITED STATES: Contraceptive Mandate Violates Religious Freedom UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay All Wages, Ramirez Class Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: McGee Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Response by June 26 UNITED STATES: Perdomo Seeks to Certify Warrantless Arrest Class UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Bid to Seal Docs in Baker Tossed VERRA MOBILITY: Otucu Sues for Damages Over Share Price Drop VIA TRANSPORTATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 10 WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bliven Over Wage & Hour Laws Violations WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Schmied Balks at Inadequate Data Security WEST VIRGINIA: Basham Suit Balks at Sex Offenders' $125 Annual Fee WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Moore" WESTGATE RESORTS: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Frost Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mercer Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA, OMFLSA WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Johnson Says ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Ebarle Suit Over ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ NAPOLEON J. A. EBARLE III, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Abbott Laboratories Health Care Plan, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; and DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06834 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties in their implementation of the Plan. They have done so by offering two, materially identical healthcare plans, one of which costs more than the other at every level of medical utilization. In other words, one plan financially dominates the other. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Xiao Wang, Esq. Ivan V. Parfenoff, Esq. THROUGHLINE LAW 745 5th Ave #500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (312) 909-0020 Email: xiao@throughline.law ivan@throughline.law ABC LEGAL: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that ABC Legal Services, LLC has agreed to a $2,500,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the company failed to protect the sensitive information of customers and employees from an August 2024 data breach. The $2.5 million ABC Legal Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 28, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially compromised during the data breach discovered by ABC Legal Services in November 2024, including all who received notice of the incident, as identified by the class list. ABC Legal settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses incurred on or after August 7, 2024 and traceable to the data breach. This benefit covers losses arising from fraud or identity theft and the costs of credit monitoring or identity theft protection services, freezing or unfreezing credit, credit reports, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an out-of-pocket loss payment. Additionally, class members can file a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of approximately $50, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's cash payout may increase to a maximum of $450 or decrease, depending on the total number of claims filed, among other factors. In addition to monetary relief, all class members can file a claim form to receive two years of IDX credit monitoring services, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and identity theft insurance. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the ABC Legal Services data breach settlement following a hearing on October 26, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The ABC Legal Services class action lawsuit claimed that the legal support company failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to safeguard the private information in its care, which allegedly led to a data breach on or around August 7, 2024. Per court documents, information potentially compromised during the breach included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license and government-issued ID numbers, financial information, health insurance information and dates of birth. [GN] ADMA BIOLOGICS: Class Action Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ADMA Biologics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADMA) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ADMA securities between August 9, 2024 and March 25, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/ADMA. ADMA Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1. ADMA Biologics engaged in an undisclosed related party transaction; 2. ADMA Biologics used channel stuffing to create an appearance of revenue; 3. ADMA Biologics lacked adequate internal controls; and 4. as a result, defendants' statements about ADMA Biologics' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. What's Next for ADMA Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/ADMA. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in ADMA you have until August 10, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to ADMA Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for ADMA Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] AHV HOLDINGS: Faces Pelaez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHV Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00242 (N.D. Ind., May 27, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader-users. As a result, the Defendant's website contains access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AHV Holdings, LLC. owns and operates the website, https://www.grillgrate.com, which offers grill grates, cooking surfaces, grilling tools, accessories, and outdoor cooking gear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law AIR-GP LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Phelps Amended to August 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC PHELPS, an individual; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive, v. AIR-GP LLC, a California limited liability company; APARTMENT INCOME REIT, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; APARTMENT INCOME REIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; APARTMENT INCOME REIT CORP., a Maryland corporation; OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.P., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:25-cv-04894-MCS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order granting in part the joint stipulation to continue hearing and briefing dates for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court's March 9, 2026 Scheduling Order is amended as follows: Event Dates Deadline to file a motion for class Aug. 3, 2026 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to the Aug. 24, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of Sept. 14, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class Oct. 5, 2026, certification: at 9:00 a.m. AIR-GP is the corporate general partner for Apartment Income REIT. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y3ywuA at no extra charge.[CC] ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Giana Suit Over Copyright Infringement ----------------------------------------------------------- ALAN GIANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING, LTD.; ALIPAY LABS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.; ALIEXPRESS E-COMMERCE ONE PTE. LTD.; and ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE ONE PTE. LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04966 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2026) alleges violation of the Copyright Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, through a pervasive infringement and misappropriation scheme of the Defendants, including, without limitation, the reproduction, copying, distribution, display, or sale of products with the infringed or misappropriated images or designs, the Defendants has infringed, and continues to infringe, on the copyrights owned by the Plaintiff and tens or hundreds of thousands of Class members across the United States. The Defendants have profited substantially from the sale of such infringing goods through direct infringement and willfully turning a blind eye to—and even condoning and facilitating, the rampant copyright infringement occurring on the Defendants' e-commerce websites and apps, added the suit. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides internet infrastructure, electronic commerce, online financial, e-commerce, retail, and internet content services via global marketplaces, as well as offers digital media, entertainment, logistics, and cloud computing solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick F. Moore, Esq. Moore Law PLLC 1140 3rd St. NE, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 289-7963 Email: derrick@mooreatty.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 457 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com - and - Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121 Los Angeles CA 90034 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David A. McGee, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 609 H Street NE, Suite 445 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 913-5681 E-mail: dmcgee@almeidalawgroup.com ALICE + OLIVIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALICE + OLIVIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04388 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Plaintiff James Murphy maintains that the Defendant violated these federal and state laws by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Based in New York, NY, Alice + Olivia, LLC owns and operates physical retail stores and the website, www.aliceandolivia.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to July 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEXIN TANG, an individual; RYAN JAMES ROBERTSON, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09734-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting the briefing and hearing schedule for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued from July 13, 2026 to July 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. The Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to the class certification motion is set for June 11, 2026. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for class certification is set for June 25, 2026. Allstate provides marine, fire, marine, business, credit, and casualty insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRUEsy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq. David L. Scott, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN A Professional Law Corporation 800 North Brand Boulevard, 8th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 507-5188 Facsimile: (818) 507-5199 E-mail: marob@marolaw.com davids@marolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark D. Campbell, Esq. Katherine Segarini-Jeffries, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mdcampbell@shb.com ksegarini@shb.com ALSTON & BIRD: Plaintiff Seeks Consolidation of Related Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EULIANO, as Trustee of the JOHN D. EULIANO REVOCABLE TRUST UTD 5- 27-14; BREVARD NURSING ACADEMY, LLC D/B/A COASTAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE; COLE BRANTLEY; CGB LOIS T, LLC; LUCREZIA PRESTA; PRESTA LLC; ROBBY A. STEELE; BRIAN J. BAILEY; ERIC LOGWOOD, as Trustee of the LITA LIVING TRUST DTD 8-19-24; and JP POLITANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP; BROAD FINANCIAL, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-60646-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) consolidating the Related Cases and any future related actions filed in, removed to, or transferred to this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and recaption the action In re Goliath Investment Litigation, (2) setting a schedule for counsel to file an application for appointment of interim class counsel and the deadline for filing a Consolidated Complaint; and (3) providing that the Defendants' deadlines to respond to the operative complaints in the Related Cases will be held in abeyance pending the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. The Related Cases here name overlapping defendants, arise from the same fraudulent scheme, and assert overlapping claims based on virtually identical facts. Therefore, these two actions are ideally suited for consolidation, the suit says. Consolidating the Related Cases and any later filed or removed cases will streamline this litigation and allow for the efficient resolution of common issues, the suit adds. In both Related Cases, the Plaintiffs allege that Christopher Delgado defrauded investors through a fraudulent cryptocurrency investment scheme called Goliath Ventures, Inc. The Plaintiffs further allege that using joint venture agreements ("JVAs") and marketing materials, Delgado and his promoters misrepresented to investors that they would use investor funds to make deposits into cryptocurrency liquidity pools and that investors would receive monthly returns from the pools' transaction fees. Alston & Bird is an American multinational law firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eAVzEp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. SCHWARTZBAUM 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (786) 453-84845 E-mail: adam@schwartzbaum.com admin@schwartzbaum.com - and - Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. Brian Pastor, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP 19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 912-3000 E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com bpastor@sonnlaw.com - and - Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Gabriel E. Morales, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com gmorales@shawlewenz.com - and - T. Liam Murphy, Esq. MURPHY'S LAW: THE CRYPTO LAW FIRM 353 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor, Suite 400 New York City, NY 10016 Telephone: (913) 575-0540 E-mail: liam@murphyslawcrypto.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. Ryan A. Schwamm, Esq. Peter M. Spett, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 1780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com rschwamm@silverlaw.com pspett@silverlaw.com - and - David Stein, Esq. Linda P. Lam, Esq. Emily Beale, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com eb@classlawgroup.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Jordan N. Isern, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jisern@girardsharp.com - and - Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq. Jason Kellogg, Esq. Victoria J. Wilson, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP Miami Tower 100 SE 2nd Street, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com jk@lklsg.com vjw@lklsg.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew Silveira, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 E-mail: msilveira@jonesday.com kacarrero@jonesday.com epedrosa@jonesday.com - and - Andrew Wingens, Esq. Kristina Bunting, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10019-6064 E-mail: awingens@paulweiss.com kbunting@paulweiss.com aapps@paulweiss.com - and - James Robinson, Esq. WHITE & CASE 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 | Miami, FL 33131-2352 E-mail: jrobinson@whitecase.com dylan.fay@whitecase.com zachary.dickens@whitecase.com - and - Lauren Wagner, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas. Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 E-mail: lwagner@omm.com pmiller@omm.com emckeen@omm.com axie@omm.com APPEARANZ INC: Secretly Adds Junk Fees Without Consent, Le Says --------------------------------------------------------------- IDA LE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APPEARANZ INC., d/b/a UNIWIGS INC., Case No. (June 16, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its use of surreptitiously tacking on "Route Package Protection" fees on all orders placed on its website without consumers' consent. When consumers make a purchase through UniWigs' website, they browse products, select items from the online store, add them to their cart, and enter their billing and shipping information. Up until this point, this is all standard for an online purchasing experience. However, UniWigs vastly diverts from the standard experience on the final payment screen by secretly tacking on a so-called "Route Package Protection" Fee, which is a percentage of the transaction that is automatically added to all orders. Never do consumers affirmatively choose to add the "Route Package Protection" to their shopping cart. Instead, UniWigs secretly adds this fee without consumers' consent right before the purchase is complete. Specifically, UniWigs installed a widget on its website that adds a hidden, pre-selected box or toggle that automatically adds junk fees like "Route Package Protection" fees, to all orders, the suit says. Appearanz is an international beauty and hair company headquartered in Los Angeles (with facilities in Chino, California).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, No. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelbserglaw.com APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Costa --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS COSTA, v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Orrick entered an order granting Apple's motion for summary judgment, and denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant. An order addressing the parties' sealing motions will follow. None of the information that is included in this Order that they sought to seal meets the compelling reasons standard. Accordingly, the equity exception applies, and I will grant summary judgment in Apple's favor. Because Apple has shown both good faith and an objectively reasonable ground for believing it was complying with the FLSA, I decline to grant liquidated damages in the plaintiffs' favor. The plaintiffs must establish that Apple's conduct was "knowing and intentional" to prevail on this claim. They have not met that burden. I will also grant summary judgment in Apple's favor on the California Labor Code claims. On Feb. 10, 2025, I granted class certification as to two classes of employees: The California Class: "All current and former California employees who Apple, Inc. classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received restricted stock units that vested on or after June 14, 2019, and recorded more than 40 hours of work in a workweek or more than eight hours of work in a workday after receiving an RSU but before the RSU vested." This excludes those who signed an arbitration agreement. The New York Class: "All current and former New York employees who Apple, Inc. classified as non-exempt/overtime eligible who received restricted stock units that vested on or after Aug. 11, 2017, and recorded more than 40 hours of work in a workweek after receiving an RSU but before the RSU vested." This excludes those who signed an arbitration agreement. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8OxwHw at no extra charge.[CC] ARCADIA CONSUMER: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Hayde ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC HAYDE and MEGAN WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC. a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-02657-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Early entered an order granting the fourth stipulation to modify scheduling order. The Court enters a modified scheduling order as follows: Event Date Initial class certification expert July 10, 2026 disclosure cut-off: Rebuttal class certification expert July 20, 2026 disclosure cut-off: Class certification expert discovery July 29, 2026 cut-off: In addition, the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Arcadia shall tentatively take place on June 23, 2026 (or another date that is mutually agreeable to Plaintiffs and Arcadia). All other dates and provisions in the Scheduling Order, as modified, shall remain unchanged. The Court relies on the parties' representation in the Stipulation that the foregoing modification will not alter (or result in a future request to alter) any other date or deadline set in the operative Scheduling Order. The Defendant is a manufacturer of over-the-counter medicines, vitamins, and nutritional supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B8y7XZ at no extra charge.[CC] AUTHENTEAK LLC: Morris Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTHENTEAK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-1018 (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.authenteak.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. AuthenTEAK LLC specializes in luxury outdoor furniture, offering a curated selection of high-end products including dining sets, loungers, umbrellas, and grills. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com BEYOND MEAT: Perrow Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------- NICKY PERROW and KOUSHALRAM KUMARAN, derivatively on behalf of BEYOND MEAT, INC., Plaintiffs v. ETHAN BROWN, LUBI KUTUA, NANDITA BAKHSHI, SETH GOLDMAN, CHELSEA A. GRAYSON, COLLEEN JAY, C. JAMES KOCH, RAYMOND J. LANE, JOSHUA M. MURRAY, and KATHY N. WALLER, and Defendants, BEYOND MEAT, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06086 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a shareholder derivative action alleging that the directors and/or officers of Beyond Meat, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties; were unjustly enriched; grossly mismanaged the Company; and committed violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the relevant period from February 27, 2025 to the present, both dates inclusive, the Individual Defendants reiterated their efforts to achieve positive EBITDA operations by the end of 2026, emphasizing that they were focused on operating expense reduction, gross margin expansion, and broader operational efficiency and optimization at the expense of other aspects of the Company's business, such as revenue growth. However, during that period, the Individual Defendants failed to disclose any need (potential or actual) for the Company to record significant asset impairment charges attributable to certain of its long-lived assets, including its property, plant, and equipment, operating lease right of use assets, or prepaid lease costs. The Defendants also failed to disclose that $14.1 million in "pre-paid expenses and other current assets" on its balance sheet were assets and not costs the Company failed to expense in connection with a transaction in which over $1 billion of the Company's debt was exchanged for equity. During the relevant period, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, asserts the complaint. The Individual Defendants either made or caused Beyond Meat to make false and misleading statements about its financial condition. The Individual Defendants either made or caused the Company to fail to disclose: (1) several of Beyond Meat's long-term assets had a book value that exceeded the fair market value of the assets; (2) the Company would very likely have to realize a substantial non-cash impairment charge because of the difference between the book value of the long-term assets and the fair market value; (3) Beyond Meat would not be able to make its periodic filings with the SEC on a timely basis because of the need to record the impairment charge; and (4) the failure of Beyond Meat to maintain internal controls, alleges the suit. Beyond Meat is a plant-based meat company whose products are available in over 190,000 grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, and universities in over 80 countries worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (949) 340-3000 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com BIG BRAND: Class Cert Bid Filing in McPhee Suit Due June 3, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS MCPHEE, v. BIG BRAND TIRE & SERVICE, Case No. 3:26-cv-02232-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be Sept. 1, 2026. -- On or before Dec. 4, 2026, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. -- On or before July 2, 2027, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed. -- On or before June 3, 2027, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification. On or before June 17, 2027, the Defendant will file its opposition to class certification. On or before June 24, 2027, the Plaintiff will file any reply, if any, to the Defendant’s opposition. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on July 8, 2027, at 1:30 PM. -- A virtual Further Case Management Conference shall be held on Jan. 7, 2027, at 10:00 AM. The Defendant provides a broad selection of tires and complete auto repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cgZX2t at no extra charge.[CC] BITGO HOLDINGS: Arsenault Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUES ARSENAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BITGO HOLDINGS, INC.; MICHAEL A. BELSHE; EDWARD REGINELLI; CHEN FANG; BRIAN BROOKS; JUSTIN EVANS; BRIAN MURRAY; SUNITA PARASURAMAN; and VIVEK PATTIPATI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03428 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants understated the scope and severity of the risk that declining digital asset prices posed to Company's business and financial performance; (ii) consequently, the Defendants' statements regarding, inter alia, BitGo's financial performance and business prospects as a public company lacked a reasonable basis; and (iii) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and/or failed to state information required to be stated therein. BitGo's stock price fell $2.05 per share, or 17.2%, to close at $9.86 on May 14, 2026, says the suit. Bitgo Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides a platform to secure, manage, utilize, and create digital assets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com BJ ACQUISITION: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJ ACQUISITION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04389 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Long Island City, NY, BJ Acquisition LLC owns and operates the commercial website, www.betseyjohnson.com, which offers clothes and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BK COFFEE: Faces Najera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ GREGORIO MORALES NAJERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BK COFFEE DELI INC., KAFEN, CORP. d/b/a KAFEN THE COFFEE SHOP, TAQUERIA EL TORITO, CORP, and GERSAIN NULL CALDERON, CESAR MARTINEZ, NICOLAS VEGA SALAZAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03402 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around December 2023 until in or around March 2026, excluding from in or around December 2024 until in or around May 2025 when the Defendants were closed due to health code violations. BK Coffee Deli Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in New York. Kafen, Corp., doing business as Kafen the Coffee Shop, is a coffee shop owner and operator in New York. Taqueria El Torito, Corp is a coffee shop owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 BLACK GOLD: Cow Manure Contains PFAS, Class Action Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Black Gold Compost has misleadingly marketed its Black Kow Cow Manure as all-natural and organic as the product contains synthetic, non-organic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS). The 34-page complaint contends that although Black Gold Compost, a leading brand in the gardening market, prominently advertises that its cow manure is entirely natural and the "perfect choice" for gardening, the product, in truth, contains manmade "forever chemicals" that bioaccumulate in the food chain and pose a significant threat to the environment and human health. "When a product contains PFAS, it is by definition, not organic or all natural," the filing summarizes. The lawsuit explains that PFAS are synthetic chemicals that have been used in industrial and commercial products for decades. Per the suit, PFAS are not found in nature, and many consumers actively seek out organic and natural products to avoid exposure to the chemicals. The complaint, referencing research from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and European Environment Agency (EEA), states that PFAS, even at low exposure levels, have been linked to fertility problems, pregnancy complications, increased cancer risks, hormonal disruptions, thyroid disease, and other conditions. The filing says that there exists no treatment to remove PFAS from the body, and experts agree that the best way to decrease risk is to avoid or limit exposure to PFAS-containing products. "PFAS do not belong in the Products, and are not necessary to the utility of the Products," the case argues. "Accordingly, because the Products contain PFAS, a category of synthetic man-made chemicals, the 'organic' and 'all natural' marketing is deceptive and misleading." The PFAS class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants intentionally use words such as "organic" and "all natural," among others," to drive sales and boost profits, namely by targeting health-conscious consumers who "reasonably believe that the Product is free from synthetic or chemical ingredients" known to be harmful. The accusations in the lawsuit are rooted in independent testing conducted in January 2026 using an EPA-recommended method to test for 40 different types of PFAS across nine compound classes in environmental samples. Per the suit, this testing revealed that Black Kow manure contains two distinct types of PFAS in amounts 100 times higher than EPA Regional Screening Levels. Further, the suit cites the USDA's National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic production and labeling, which permits the use of some synthetic materials when specifically identified, but never identifies any "allowed" PFAS. Due to the presence of PFAS in the product, the lawsuit alleges, any claims from Black Gold Compost that its manure is natural or organic are false and an attempt to justify the premium price at which the manure is sold. The suit contends that consumers have no meaningful way to independently verify the accuracy of these claims and as such, they must rely on the representations of the manufacturer when making their purchasing decisions. The Black Kow class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Black Kow Cow Manure for personal or household use during the fullest period allowed by law. [GN] BLACKLANE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elmejjati Says ---------------------------------------------------------- AZZOUBAIR ELMEJJATI; TARIK ELGHARNITI; LOTFI LIAZIDI; MOHAMED MENKARI; and MOHAMED FADLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACKLANE NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12648-LTS (D. Mass., June 10, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime and gratuities, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers. Blacklane North America Inc. is a transportation company that provides limousine services across the United States, including in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Trevor Byrne, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com tbyrne@llrlaw.com BLOOM CHOICE: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOM CHOICE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04842 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.flowershopping.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bloom Choice is an online floral marketplace that offers flower arrangement, which allows florists to design a custom bouquet using the freshest seasonal stems available. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BURGERS CORP: Lucero Seeks Unpaid RegulaR & OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE LUCERO, and other similarly-situated individuals v. BURGERS CORP., d/b/a MALBEC GRILL, LA RURAL PARKLAND, LLC., d/b/a MALBEC GRILL, EMILIO DACARET, individually, and CECILIO MIRA, individually, Case No. 0:26-cv-61695 (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly-situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after June of 2023, without being adequately compensated, the suit says. The Defendants operate a steakhouse restaurant specializing in Argentinian and Latin American food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com BYLT LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jerde Due Feb. 7, 2028 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC JERDE, v. BYLT, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01496-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Feb. 7, 2028 motion for class certification: The Defendant's opposition: March 8, 2028 The Plaintiff's reply: April 7, 2028 The Court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall inform the Court immediately should Plaintiff(s) at any time decide not to seek class certification. The Defendant offers t-shirts,hoodies, pants, joggers, shorts, leggings, accessories, and other related products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DvqyzT at no extra charge.[CC] CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Feldman Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC, PENNEY OPCO LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, and AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00649-MJT (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2026) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, W-2 tax records, payroll information, physical scans of government-issued identity documents, driver's licenses, and other personally identifiable information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendants with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendants have a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that they collect and store against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite the Defendants' duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendants' possession was compromised when the online extortion group, 'ShinyHunters', posted on its dark-web extortion site on or about June 12, 2026, that it stole hundreds of thousands of records including extremely sensitive personal and employment-related information (the Data Breach). Catalyst is a company formed in 2025 by the merger of Sparc Group and JCPenney. It has a close relationship with Authentic Brands Group where, in some business arrangements, the brand name, logo, trade dress, design patents, and other intellectual property are owned or co owned by Authentic Brands Group with the business operations being conducted through licensing arrangements with Catalyst. For example, for the Eddie Bauer brand, store operations were licensed to Catalyst. JCPenney is one of the largest department store chains in the United States, operating retail stores and an online platform that sell clothing, home goods, accessories, and related merchandise. Authentic is an American sports, media, entertainment and lifestyle platform headquartered in New York City. It owns more than 50 consumer brands, as well as the likeness rights or estates of celebrities including Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe. Authentic acquires, builds, and manages consumer brands in various business chains, including the apparel market. Authentic describes itself as "a digital-first, asset-light platform" that works with "more than 1,700 best-in-class licensing partners across 150 countries."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. Law Offices of LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jatta Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JATTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC and PENNEY OPCO LLC D/B/A JCPENNEY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00652 (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendants are retail shopping businesses based in Plano, Texas. As such, Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about their current and former employees. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former employees' PII, the suit says. On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendants' misconduct. Catalyst Brands is a retail shopping conglomerate that has "an unmatched portfolio of six iconic retail banners" including "Aeropostale, Brooks Brothers, Eddie Bauer, Lucky Brand and Nautica with JCPenney and its exclusive private brands, including Stafford, Arizona and Liz Claiborne."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com CCS INTERVENTION: Class Cert. Filing in MacKenzie Due May 28, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY MACKENZIE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CCS INTERVENTION OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a/ COMPLEXCARE SOLUTIONS, Case No. 3:26-cv-00255 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery S. Frensley entered an initial case management order as follows: -- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before June 8, 2026. -- The parties shall complete all written discovery and depose all fact witnesses on or before April 30, 2027. -- All discovery motions shall be filed by no later than March 26, 2027. –- The plaintiff shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses and expert reports on or before Jan. 29, 2027. The defendant shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses and reports on or before Feb. 26, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 28, 2027. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using, or causing to be used, an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it placed, or caused to be placed, to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent. The Defendant is a provider of member engagement and health information management services for health plan networks nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UuesBK at no extra charge.[CC] CEFE NO. 2 LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. CEFE NO. 2, LLC and CRISTAL ENERGY LLC D/B/A BP HIALEAH, Case No. 1:26-cv-23968-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property, and commercial gas station. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property, and commercial gas station have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and commercial gas station business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. CEFE NO. 2, LLC owned and managed a commercial property located in Hialeah, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com CENTRAL MAINE: Discovery Issue Order Entered in Gagnon Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE GAGNON, v. CENTRAL MAINE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00423-LEW (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge entered an order on discovery issue as follows: After consideration of the parties' arguments and the relevant authority, the Court concludes that at the present time, the Defendant is not required to produce the putative class members' contact information. The Plaintiff may renew her request if circumstances warrant. At this stage, therefore, the Court is not persuaded that the contact information "is necessary" for the Plaintiff's certification argument. Given the recognized concern regarding the privacy of the putative class members, the reasonable approach would be to proceed as outlined in the Court's recent discovery order at least preliminarily. If upon receipt of this information, the Plaintiff believes the information is insufficient to permit the Plaintiff to argue effectively for class certification, or if, in response to the Plaintiff's motion for certification, the Defendant contends there is insufficient factual support for certification and the Plaintiff believes the contact information could refute the argument, the Plaintiff can renew her request for the contact information. In this class action and collective action, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maine Employment Practices Act, and the Maine Minimum Wage and Overtime Law. The parties disagree as to whether Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to obtain the contact information of putative class members as part of the pre-certification discovery. The Defendant is an integrated healthcare delivery system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GkZeuG at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Oglesby Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- GWEN OGLESBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00918 (D. Conn., June 8, 2026) arises from Charter's failure to reasonably secure, monitor, and protect the personal information, customer account information, and telecommunications-related information entrusted to them by millions of current, former, and prospective customers. The complaint relates that as a condition of obtaining or inquiring about Charter's services, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Charter with sensitive information, including personally identifiable information ("PII") and account information, including names, email addresses, physical addresses, telephone numbers, account and plan information, customer support information, billing-related information, and telecommunications-related data, including Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") where applicable. Despite its role as a steward of highly valuable customer information, Charter failed to implement and maintain reasonable and appropriate safeguards over its systems and over the third‑party software and software-as-a-service ("SaaS") environments it used to store and manage customer Sensitive Information, adds the complaint. On April 1, 2026, a criminal extortion group known as "ShinyHunters" successfully compromised a Charter employee's Microsoft Entra (formerly Azure Active Directory) account using a voice‑phishing attack. The threat actors then used that access to export millions of consumer and business customer records from Charter's Salesforce instance, stealing customer Sensitive Information and using it for extortion. On May 26, 2026, public reports revealed that Charter had been listed on the ShinyHunters extortion group's data‑leak site and that Charter had confirmed it suffered a Data Breach. As a direct and proximate result of Charter's negligence, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to, the present and future risk of identity theft, fraud, and scams; out‑of‑pocket expenses for mitigation; loss of time and opportunity costs; diminution in the value of their personal information; and loss of the benefit of their bargain with Charter, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members, therefore, seek compensatory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring Charter to implement and maintain adequate security measures. Plaintiff Gwen Oglesby is a citizen of North Carolina, and a former customer of Charter/Spectrum during the relevant period. Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. Charter Communications, LLC, and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC (collectively, "Defendants" or "Charter") is one of the largest telecommunications and broadband providers in the United States and provides internet, mobile, video, voice, cable television, and related services to tens of millions of current, former, and prospective customers across the country under the "Spectrum" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: 203-325-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Renner K. Walker, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 646-357-1100 E-mail: rwalker@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com CLARITY TELECOM: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pederson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG PEDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARITY TELECOM, LLC d/b/a BLUEPEAK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02480 (D. Colo., June 4, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. On December 11, 2025, the Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, stored thereon in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, the data breach has impacted thousands of Defendant's current and former clients, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, 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. In failing to adequately protect its clients' information, and by failing to adequately notify them about the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of its current and former clients, it adds. Clarity Telecom, LLC is an Internet service provider providing fiber internet across Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Texas, and Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com CLIFTON FORGE, VA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boyd Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WILLIAM BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF CLIFTON FORGE, VIRGINIA, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00464-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., June 9, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Boyd was employed by the Defendant as a firefighter. The Town of Clifton Forge, Virginia is a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Telephone: (540) 283-0802 Email: thomas@vaemployment.law CLOUDFLARE INC: Handelsbanken Sues Over Recapitalization Proposal ----------------------------------------------------------------- HANDELSBANKEN FONDER AB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW PRINCE; MICHELLE ZATLYN; SCOTT SANDELL; KARIM LAKHANI; KATRIN SUDER; STACEY CUNNINGHAM; JOHN GRAHAMCUMMING; MARK HAWKINS; CARL LEDBETTER; and CLOUDFLARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0772 (Del. Ch., June 10, 2026) is an action seeking to challenge the Recapitalization, a conflicted controller transaction specifically designed to allow Cloudflare's Co-Founders and controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn, to continue to liquidate massive amounts of their equity while retaining majority voting control of the Company. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Recapitalization provides the Co-Founders a nonratable benefit -- the ability to sell massive amounts of equity while maintaining control. Nevertheless, the Recapitalization proposal only requires the affirmative vote of the holders of the Company's outstanding common stock. In other words, as the Proxy admits, the Co-Founders "have the power to approve and adopt the Charter amendments without the affirmative vote of any other stockholder," says the Plaintiff. Cloudflare, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The Company offers platform for load balancing, video streaming, security, analysis, and domain registration. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8002 Email: Daniel@jvk-law.com - and - Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. Aasiya Mirza Glover, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. Micah McCreary, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St. Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Esq. RM LAW, P.C. Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 615-2007 CLOUDFLARE INC: Mumme Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- RONALD MUMME, directly on behalf of himself 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. 2026-0734 (Del. Ch., June 4, 2026) is a verified stockholder class action complaint brought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties. The case arises out of an alleged disloyal 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. The Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties is in connection with: (i) the Company's proposed amendment to Cloudflare's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to, among other things, create new non-voting Class C Stock and split the Class A and Class B stock; (ii) the creation of new Series FF Preferred Stock; (iii) and the planned exchange of the Founders' Class B Stock for Class A stock and Series FF Preferred Stock. Cloudflare, Inc. is an American cloud services and cybersecurity 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 E-mail: 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 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 COHN RESTAURANT GROUP: York Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Emma York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cohn Restaurant Group, Inc., Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26CU029643C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., May 29, 2026). Cohn Restaurant Group -- https://www.dinecrg.com/ -- is a family owned restaurant, where the specialties are cuisine, service and the atmosphere.[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 COLUMBIA PACIFIC: 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 Columbia Pacific Advisors 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 Columbia Pacific Advisors data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Columbia Pacific Advisors Security Incident: What Happened? Columbia Pacific Advisors (CPA), an investment management firm based in Washington state, has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. A notice posted on the company's website states that an investigation determined that, on November 28, 2025, some information on CPA's systems was potentially viewed or exfiltrated without authorization. A review of the data that may have been involved in the Columbia Pacific data breach ended on or about June 2, 2026, concluding that names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses, passport numbers, U.S. alien registration information, financial account information, taxpayer identification numbers, system access information, health insurance information, and medical information may have been exposed. The company is notifying those whose information may have been compromised in the CPA data breach (see sample notice pictured below). What You Can Do After the Columbia Pacific Advisors Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Columbia Pacific Advisors 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 Columbia Pacific Advisors 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] COLUMBUS MANUFACTURING: Ventura Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbus Manufacturing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Esperanza Cheverria Ventura, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbus Manufacturing, Inc., Hormel Foods Corporation, Case No. 26CV190745 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Columbus Craft Meats -- https://www.columbuscraftmeats.com/ -- is an American food processing company specializing in salami and other prepared delicatessen meats, founded in San Francisco in 1917.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arrash T. Fattahi, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: arrash.fattahi@wilshirelawfirm.com COMMERCIAL APPLIANCE SERVICE: Haq Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commercial Appliance Service, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Manzoorul Haq, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Commercial Appliance Service, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV013198 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Commercial Appliance Service, LLC -- https://www.commercialappliance.com/ -- is a specialized provider of commercial equipment repair, serving as the authorized service agent for major manufacturers.[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 COMMUNITY BUILDERS: Leonard Seeks Maintenance Technicians' OT Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEVON LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COMMUNITY BUILDERS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-12715 (D. Mass., June 15, 2026) is a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who work or worked for Defendant as hourly-paid maintenance technicians and other similarly situated employees and who were not paid all overtime compensation and other wages due for all compensable hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violates the FLSA through unlawful timekeeping and payroll practices for hourly-paid employees, including failing to pay employees for all time worked, including overtime compensation, for mandatory training time. The Plaintiff performed work for Defendant in Maryland as a maintenance technician at Defendant's location in Annapolis, Maryland. TCB is a developer of mixed-income housing in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 180 Elm Street, Suite I, Box 183 Pittsfield, MA 01202 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com COMPEX LEGAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $872,500 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Compex Legal Services, Inc. has agreed to an $872,500 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the legal and insurance support company failed to protect sensitive information in its care from a data breach discovered in April 2024. The $872,500 Compex Legal Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 22, 2026. The agreement covers all individuals whose personally identifiable and/or protected health information was or could have been impacted as a result of the Compex data breach, including all who received notice of the incident. Court documents state that approximately 57,000 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Compex Legal Services data breach settlement can be found at CompexDataSettlement.com. Compex settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred on or after April 9, 2024 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses arising from identity theft or fraud and the costs of late or overdraft fees, card cancellation or replacement, credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. Additionally, class members can file a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of approximately $100 to $200. The final amount of each class member's cash payment will depend on the total number of claims filed, among other considerations. To file a Compex settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN 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 settlement administrator. All Compex settlement claim forms must be filed online or by mail by August 19, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Compex Legal Services settlement following a hearing on August 31, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Compex Legal Services class action lawsuit claimed that the California-based litigation support and insurance document management company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity protections to safeguard sensitive information in its systems, which allegedly led to a data breach that Compex identified on or around April 9, 2024. Per court documents, private information potentially exposed during the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information and credit card information. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Bid Filing in George Due May 21, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSEL GEORGE, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., Case No. 3:26-cv-02369-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hixson entered a case management order as follows: Parties to file status report re: private Sept. 9, 2026 mediation: Exchange Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures: Sept. 23, 2026 Deadline for discovery requests: Mar. 9, 2027 Close of fact discovery: Apr. 9, 2027 The Plaintiff's motion for class May 21, 2027 Certification; and Rule 26(b)(2) expert disclosure relating to class certification: The Defendant is an American multinational corporation that operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rL5CM2 at no extra charge.[CC] COTY INC: Chen Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIAN JUN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COTY INC., SUE NABI, and LAURENT MERCIER, Case No. 1:26-cv-04034-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Abrams entered an order referring case to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for the following purposes: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Motion(s) for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel, if any. Motion(s) for class certification, if any. Motion(s) for consolidation, if any. Coty is a multinational beauty company founded in Paris in 1904 by François Coty. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUaOii at no extra charge.[CC] COTY INC: Srinivasan Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUVEGA SRINIVASAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COTY INC., SUE NABI, and LAURENT MERCIER, Case No. 1:26-cv-02343-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Abrams entered an order referring case to Magistrate Judge Figueredo for the following purposes: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Motion(s) for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel, if any. Motion(s) for class certification, if any. Motion(s) for consolidation, if any. Coty is a multinational beauty company founded in Paris in 1904 by François Coty. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWAXL0 at no extra charge.[CC] CSI COMPANIES: Mora Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Nichole Mora, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE CSI COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01512 (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (the "FLSA"). The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and its other Straight Time Employees by the hour. The Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and its other Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours after 40 in a workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis." the Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving non-exempt employees (the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees) of required premium overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Straight Time Employees in Texas. CSI is a staffing firm that touts itself as "one of the nation's most trusted workforce solutions providers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com CURRENEX INC: Edmar Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., v. CURRENEX, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and appoint class counsel is granted save that it is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The Clerk is directed to terminate as moot the Defendants' motion for oral argument. The case concerns conduct that occurred up to over two decades ago. It has been pending for close to five years. The Defendants understandably want to stop this case where it stands, or, barring that, at least prevent it from becoming bigger. But the Court's task at this stage, at least with respect to the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3), is limited to determining whether common questions exist and predominate. The Plaintiffs have established that they do. The Plaintiffs seek to certify as a class of: "all persons and entities who completed at least one spot foreign exchange trade on the Executable Streaming Prices portion of Currenex, Inc.'s platform using the PROD stack from Jan. 1, 2005, to July 21, 2014." Currenex provides an independent global currency exchange to institutional buyers and sellers around the world. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FtmZV5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. David LeRay, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART& SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison A venue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (2 12) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Mark Ruddy, Esq. RUDDY GREGORY, PLLC 1225 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 797-0762 Facsimile: (202) 3 18-0543 E-mail: rnruddy@ruddylaw.com - and - Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC 308 S. Jefferson St. Suite 333 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 535-5995 The Defendants are represented by: Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Samer Musallam, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com robert.jones@ropesgray.com samer.musallam@ropesgray.com - and - Eric A. Kuwana, Esq. Brett D. Jaffe, Esq. Christopher J. Borchert, Esq. B. Parker Miller, Esq. Jason N. Sigalos, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1 Atlantic Center 1201 W Peachtree Street, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 - and - Peter G. Wilson, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006-3404 Telephone: (202) 625-3500 - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 Facsimile: (212) 225-3999 E-mail: cboccuzzi@cgsh.com rzutshi@cgsh.com CUSIP GLOBAL: Dinosaur Financial Allowed to Seal Class Cert Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group LLC et al., v. CUSIP Global Services et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal related to the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motions to exclude the testimony of Professor Jorge L. Contreras and Dr. Lauren J. Stiroh. The Court agrees that the material the Defendants have identified satisfies the test for sealing set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 401. The Clerk of Court is further directed to maintain all currently sealed docket entries under seal. CUSIP provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bUuFsu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. Ryan A. Kane, Esq. Joshua M. Slocum, Esq. WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 382-3300 E-mail: raranoff@wmd-law.com rkane@wmd-law.com jslocum@wmd-law.com - and - Leiv Blad, Esq. Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Esq. Meg Slachetka, Esq. COMPETITION LAW PARTNERS PLLC 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 742-4300 E-mail: leiv@competitionlawpartners.com jeff@competitionlawpartners.com meg@competitionlawpartners.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com DAMERON HOSPITAL: Trejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dameron Hospital Association. The case is styled as Lisa Trejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dameron Hospital Association, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0004048 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Dameron Hospital -- https://www.dameronhospital.org/ -- is a fully accredited, non-profit, 200+ bed community hospital providing acute and tertiary level care to San Joaquin County residents and is a designated heart attack receiving center for San Joaquin County.[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 DECKERS OUTDOOR: Norberg Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deckers Outdoor Corporation. The case is styled as Linda Norberg, and others similarly situated v. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, Case No. 26CV03402 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Contract." Deckers Outdoor Corporation, doing business as Deckers Brands -- https://www.deckers.com/home -- is an American footwear designer and distributor founded in 1973 and based in Goleta, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com DEL MONTE: Refuses to Refund Tariff Overcharges, King Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ SEQUOIA KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05053 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory relief arising from Del Monte's practice of raising the prices it charged consumers in order to pass on the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and Del Monte's refusal to refund those overcharges to consumers even as Del Monte sues the federal government to recover for itself the very same tariffs that consumers actually paid. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that IEEPA tariffs were illegal. 15 Following this decision, the importer of record became entitled to refunds of the duties they had previously paid. The consumers who ultimately paid those tariffs, like Plaintiff and the proposed Class, have no statutory right of action to pursue or collect a refund of the illegal tariffs they paid. Del Monte has availed itself of that importer-only mechanism. On May 7, 2026, Del Monte filed suit against the United States and federal officials in the United States Court of International Trade, seeking in part, "the refund of unlawful duties. Yet while Del Monte demands a refund of the tariffs it paid, it has not refunded a penny to the consumers who actually paid those tariffs through inflated prices, nor has it given any indication that it intends to do so. While the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, Del Monte paid those tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and passed the tariff burden on to consumers like Plaintiff and the Class in the form of higher prices. Del Monte thus stands to recover the tariff costs twice. Once from its customers through higher prices, and again from the government through its refund suit, while keeping the windfall for itself, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated against Defendant for violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. Del Monte is a major importer of canned and packaged food products that sources a substantial portion of its goods internationally, including from China, Greece, Mexico, Thailand, Peru, and the Philippines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Banuelos Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Banuelos, individually and on behalf of her minor children A.V., D.B., and P.L., each and all individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-12575 (D. Mass., June 5, 2026), is brought against DentaQuest for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") of its current and former members (and, in some instances, their guardians) from a cyberattack that affected DentaQuest on June 5, 2026. On May 23, 2026, upon information and belief, an unauthorized third party gained access to DentaQuest's network systems and obtained files containing the PII/PHI of DentaQuest's current and former members (and, in some instances, their guardians), including Plaintiff (the "Data Breach"). DentaQuest owed a duty to Plaintiff, A.V., D.B., P.L., and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. DentaQuest breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its members' (and, in some instances, their guardians') PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of DentaQuest's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's, A.V.'s, D.B.'s, P.L.'s, and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and her minor children and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's minor children, A.V., D.B., and P.L. are or were insured by DentaQuest. DentaQuest is a dental benefits administrator and dental insurance provider that administers dental benefit plans and services for government-sponsored programs, health plans, employer groups, individuals, and other members and participants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: Sanchez Files Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Sanchez, Michelle Pollok, Nicole Wulf, Amy Koch, Diane Koch, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-02021-JAM-CSK (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is an American chain of dollar stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com DOUGLASS TRUCK BODIES: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglass Truck Bodies, Inc. The case is styled as Kelly Jones, on behalf of those similarly situated v. Douglass Truck Bodies, Inc., Case No. 26CUB02069 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Douglass Truck Bodies -- https://www.douglasstruckbodies.com/ -- specializes in the manufacturing and design of standard and custom truck bodies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aidin Ghavimi, Esq. STARPOINT, LC 15233 Ventura Blvd., PH16 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-2291 Phone: 310-424-9971 Fax: 424-255-4035 Email: aidin@starpointlaw.com DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BREANA A. BOWER, et al., v. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00453-MAK (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for an extension of time for Plaintiff to move for Rule 23 class certification. DuPont is a science company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7BHhI at no extra charge.[CC] EARNEST OPERATIONS: Bradford Sues Over Alleged ECOA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARNEST OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04179 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) seeks redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant violated ECOA by failing to provide him with specific reasons for the credit denial. The Defendant's failure has deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on, says the suit. Headquartered in Oakland, CA, Earnest Operations, LLC provides loans and credit to consumers across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com EL POLLO LOCO: Avila Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Pollo Loco, Inc. The case is styled as Argentina Avila, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Case No. 26STCV16455 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." El Pollo Loco -- https://www.elpolloloco.com/ -- is the name of three independent restaurant chains that specialize in Mexican-style grilled chicken.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. Eric Tims, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com etims@lelawfirm.com ELEVATED STEEL: Alvarez Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORENZO ALVAREZ, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ELEVATED STEEL, LLC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00023-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting conditional certification of, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and notice be sent to, the following: "All fabrication workers employed by or working on behalf of Elevated Steel and paid straight time for overtime in the past three (3) years" ("Straight Time Workers"); and (2) directing Elevated Steel to provide names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative class members. Elevated Steel allegedly classified Alvarez and its other fabrication workers as independent contractors and paid them straight time for overtime. This practice violates . The Defendant provides a one-stop-shop for customers needing design, fabrication, coating, and installation of steel structures. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B4wIYb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal - and - Julie H. Burke, Esq. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP 3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30339-6406 Telephone: (770) 953-0995 E-mail: jb@hkw-law.com ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Settles Magnesium Class Action Suit for $1.84MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased Nutricost magnesium glycinate supplements in either the 240- or 120-capsule size while living in the United States between Feb. 1, 2021, and June 8, 2026, may be eligible to claim up to $19.95 per product from a class action settlement. eSupplements LLC, d/b/a Nutricost, agreed to pay $1.84 million to resolve a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged Nutricost misrepresented the amount and type of magnesium in its magnesium glycinate supplements, incorrectly marketing them as containing 420 milligrams of magnesium "as magnesium glycinate." Who can file a claim? To be eligible to file a claim, individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They lived in the United States at the time of purchase. -- They purchased Nutricost magnesium glycinate supplements in either the 240-capsule or 120-capsule variant. -- They purchased the supplements between Feb. 1, 2021, and June 8, 2026. -- The settlement only covers supplements labeled as "magnesium glycinate" with 420 milligrams per serving containing 240 or 120 capsules. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $1,835,000. Class members who submit a valid claim can receive a payment for each qualifying supplement they purchased. The maximum value per product is $19.95, but the actual amount may be less depending on the number of valid claims and the net settlement fund after deductions for attorneys' fees and costs, incentive awards for class representatives and administrative costs. Each claim is worth one award unit. The settlement administrator will calculate the value of each award unit as follows: net settlement fund / total number of valid award units = value per award unit (capped at $19.95). Class members who have a claim ID and PIN are eligible for one award unit per supplement purchased as reflected in sales records. Those who do not have a claim ID and PIN are eligible for one award unit total. How to claim a class action rebate Class members can submit the online claim form or download and print a PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Magnesium Supplement Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91237, Seattle, WA 98111 The claim deadline is Aug. 7, 2026. Required information Online claimants must provide the claim ID number and PIN located on the settlement notice they received. Those who do not have a claim ID number and PIN must download and print a PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Payout options -- Paper check by mail -- PayPal (provide PayPal email address on the claim form) $1.84 million settlement fund breakdown The $1,835,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $611,666.67 -- Attorneys' costs: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $10,000 each for three representatives (up to $30,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 7, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 7, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 15, 2026 When is the magnesium supplement settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Nutricost misrepresented the amount and type of magnesium in its magnesium glycinate supplements, violating consumer protection laws and breaching warranties. Nutricost denies these allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense, risk and delay of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $19.95 per product (maximum) Deadline: August 7, 2026 [GN] EVERLANE INC: Leers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlane, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Leers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Everlane, Inc., Case No. CGC26637136 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Everlane -- https://www.everlane.com/ -- is an American clothing retailer that sells primarily online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Phone: 224-632-4500 Email: mruan@fklmlaw.com FEDEX CORP: Bid for Class Certification in Almonte Due August 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRERA ALMONTE, et al., v. FEDEX CORPORATION et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03224 (D.N.J., Filed June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order modfying the deadlines entered on March 12, 2026 as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and to disclose Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Reports: August 11, 2026; (2) Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification, disclosure of Defendants' Expert Reports, and service of Defendants' Daubert Motions to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Experts: October 13, 2026; (3) Plaintiffs' Reply to Class Certification, Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Reports, Plaintiffs' Daubert Opposition, and Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions to Defendants' Class Certification: December 15, 2026; (4) Defendants' Daubert replies and Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions: February 3, 2027; (5) Plaintiffs' Daubert replies: March 8, 2027; and (6) the Pretrial fact discovery cutoff date is 60 days after the Court's class certification decision. Counsel should meet and confer on any discovery disputes and strive to resolve them. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. FedEx provides transportation, ecommerce, and business services.[CC] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Day Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA --------------------------------------------------- COREY DAY; and MICHELLE JETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01946-B (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Brantley Starr. First Advantage Background Services Corp. provides detective, guard, and armored car services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney C. Washington, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 107 S. McGraw Ave. Forney, TX 75126 Telephone: (972) 349-1906 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: cwashington@sirillp.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 2300 Main Street, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com FLO HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Suit for $59.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who used the Flo app in the United States between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019, and entered menstruation or pregnancy information may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement totaling $59.5 million. Flo Health Inc. agreed to pay $8 million, Google LLC will pay $48 million and Flurry LLC will pay $3.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they shared users' sensitive health information with third parties through the Flo app without proper notice or authorization. Who can file a claim for a Flo settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: Nationwide class: -- They used the Flo app in the United States between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019. -- They entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo app during that period. California subclass: -- They used the Flo app in California between Nov. 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2019. -- They entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the Flo app during that period. -- They lived in California at the time (California did not have to be the legal state of residency). How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Claimants who are also California subclass members will receive twice the pro rata cash payment amount. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Period Tracker Data Privacy Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, P.O. Box 173126, Milwaukee, WI 53217 After submitting an online claim, the screen will display a printable confirmation of claim receipt to confirm receipt of online claim submission. The claim deadline is Oct. 15, 2026. Required claim information All claimants must provide the email address they used with the Flo app. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $59,500,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $19,337,500 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $3,600,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $155,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 15, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 29, 2026 When is the Flo period tracker privacy settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Flo Health Inc. shared users' sensitive health information, including menstruation and pregnancy data, with third parties, such as Google, Flurry, and Meta, through the Flo app without proper notice or consent. The plaintiffs claimed this violated various privacy and consumer protection laws, including the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The settling defendants deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata share Deadline: October 15, 2026 [GN] FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Class Cert Filing in Merrell Due June 15, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACY MERRELL, v. FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-02264-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered a case management order as follows: Event Date Last Day to File Stipulated Protective June 30, 2026 Order and Stipulated ESI Order: Close of Fact Discovery: March 1, 2027 Expert Disclosures: March 30, 2027 ADR Completion (private ADR): April 30, 2027 Close of Expert Discovery: May 31, 2027 Last Day to File Class Certification Motion: June 15, 2027 Last Day to File Opposition to Class July 22, 2027 Certification Motion: Last Day to file Reply in Support of Motion Aug. 12, 2027 for Class Certification: The Defendant is a fully integrated cane sugar company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZsRWac at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Parties Must File Consolidated Class Cert Briefing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MILLER, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order that: 1. The parties shall file consolidated class certification briefing in only the Miller action; 2. The Plaintiffs' anticipated consolidated motion for class certification shall not exceed 45 pages, the defendant's consolidated opposition shall not exceed 45 pages, and the plaintiffs' reply thereto shall not exceed 20 pages; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file this order on the Miller and the Nelson dockets. On June 5, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate class certification briefing between the Miller, et al., v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.) action ("the Miller action") and the Nelson, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-02231- DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.) action ("the Nelson action"). Accordingly, the parties contend that consolidating class certification briefing will be more convenient and efficient for the parties in preparing the anticipated motion for class certification and would conserve judicial resources. The court therefore finds good cause to permit consolidation of class certification briefing across the Miller and Nelson actions. The Defendant is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uAEqwH at no extra charge.[CC] FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ KARMEN COUSAR AND VANESSA TOOLE, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY, LLC, FOUNTAIN OF KNOWLEDGE ACADEMY OBETZ, LLC, AND PASTORDAVIDABU, Case No. : 2:26-cv-00725-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 15, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages for off-the-clockwork, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated are the Defendants' current and former non-exempt employees who, within the applicable limitations period, worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks and were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in those workweeks. The Defendants offer a nurturing childcare environment focusing on early childhood development.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX,LLP 4200Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com FOX CORP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Roku Inc. --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Fox Corporation (NASDAQ: FOX, FOXA) related to its merger with Roku, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Fox shareholders are expected to own approximately 73% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fox-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] FRESHCUT PAPER: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESHCUT PAPER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04898 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.freshcutpaper.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. FreshCut Paper, LLC is an American eco-friendly gifting company based in Concord, Massachusetts. They specialize in 100% recyclable, life-sized 3D pop-up paper flower bouquets and greeting cards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FROST BANK: Delong Data Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GAYLE DELONG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FROST BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2026CI09161, was removed from the 407th Judicial District Court in Bexar County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 26, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03400 to the proceeding. The case arises from a data incident allegedly affecting the personal information of Plaintiff and other individuals. In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; and (3) unjust enrichment. Headquartered in San Antonio, TX, Frost Bank offers personal and business banking services, investment, and insurance products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, Esq. 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 Facsimile: (214) 855-8200 E-mail: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Ashley Senary Dahlberg, Esq. Frost Tower, 111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5575 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 E-mail: ashley.dahlberg@nortonrosefulbright.com FUEL DELIVERY SERVICES: Lynch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fuel Delivery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Lynch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fuel Delivery Services, Inc., Case No. CU26-05175 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Fuel Delivery Services -- https://www.gofds.com/ -- is a Premier Bulk Transporter of refined petroleum products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law G.SKILL INT'L: Class Settlement in Hurd Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTAN HURD and KEN DIMICCO, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., G.SKILL USA, INC., NEUTECK, INC., and RACERSPEED, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals in the United States who purchased one or more Products from Jan. 31, 2018, to Jan. 7, 2026." "Products" is defined as "G.Skill DDR-4 (non-SODIMM/laptop) memory product with a rated speed over 2133 megahertz (MHz) or any G.Skill DDR-5 (nonSODIMM/laptop) memory product with a rated speed over 4800 megahertz." -- The Settlement requires that G.Skill make certain changes to its representations related to product speed in its labeling and advertising, and also creates a $2,400,000 non-reversionary common fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class. This fund will cover direct payments to Class Members who filed a valid Claim Form, as well as notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and costs, and incentive awards to the Class Representatives. -- The Court reaffirms its preliminary appointment of Plaintiffs Tristan Hurd and Ken Dimicco as Class Representatives and Dovel & Luner LLP and Kneupper & Covey, PC as Class Counsel. -- The Court grants the requested award of $800,000 in fees and $116,277.66 in costs. G.Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2pAN9M at no extra charge.[CC] GALLEGO SEAFOOD: Melendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELISEO CORTEZ MELENDEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. GALLEGO SEAFOOD CORP, GALLEGO SEAFOOD 2 CORP., GALLEGO SEAFOOD 3 CORP., GALLEGO SEAFOOD 4 CORP. and JUAN JOSE LINARES, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04391 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a cook and kitchen worker from on or about November 25, 2021 until in or about January 29, 2026. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff typically did not receive uninterrupted meal breaks during his shifts and was regularly required Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours during his workweeks. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at his statutorily required overtime rate. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours compensation of one additional hour at the applicable minimum wage rate for each workday that exceeded ten hours, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Gallego Seafood Corp owns and operates restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 GENEDX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com), a nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, informs investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against GeneDx Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: WGS) on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired WGS common stock between April 16, 2025, and May 4, 2026, inclusive. The lawsuit is filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Taher Basma v. GeneDx Holdings Corp., No. 26-cv-00880 (D. Conn.). Investors have until August 3, 2026, to file for lead plaintiff status. Affected WGS Investor Summary Who: GeneDx Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: WGS) What: Securities fraud class action lawsuit filed Class Period: April 16, 2025 through May 4, 2026 Deadline to Seek Lead Plaintiff Status: August 3, 2026 Key Lawsuit Allegations: Material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the viability of the company's acquisition of Fabric Genomics Investor Action: Contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) for recovery options CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you purchased or acquired GeneDx common stock and have lost money on your investment, you are encouraged to contact KTMC attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. at: -- (484) 270-1453 -- info@ktmc.com -- https://www.ktmc.com/wgs-genedx-holdings-corp-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR_Newswire&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=wgs&mktm=PR There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney. GENEDX HOLDINGS CORP. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT -- COMPLAINT ALLEGATION SUMMARY: GeneDx provides genetic testing services for diagnosing pediatric and rare diseases. The class period begins on April 16, 2025, when GeneDx announced that it entered into an agreement worth up to $51 million to acquire Fabric Genomics ("Fabric"), a firm focused on AI-driven genomic interpretation. As part of the deal, WGS would pay up to $33 million cash up front, with total consideration up to $51 million. As part of the announcement of the acquisition, GeneDx stated that it would expand GeneDx's addressable market with several scalable revenue streams. GeneDx went on to tout that Fabric's "software transforms static data into a dynamic, recurring revenue-generating platform—driving growth through software margins and high-leverage interpretation services across geographies and clinical use cases." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fabric faced significant problems with its viability; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Why did GeneDx's Stock Drop? On May 4, 2026, GeneDx announced its 2026 first quarter results which revealed an apparent drop in adjusted gross margin, lowered projected earnings, and that the average reimbursement rate was below expectations. GeneDx further disclosed that it had written off an impairment loss of $31.3 million directly attributable to Fabric, which was only $5.2 million less than what it paid to acquire Fabric a year prior. On this news, GeneDx's share price fell more than 49%. WHAT WGS INVESTORS CAN DO NOW: 1. File to be lead plaintiff by August 3, 2026. 2. Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. 3. Retain counsel of choice or take no action. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR GENEDX HOLDINGS CORP. INVESTORS: GeneDx investors may, no later than August 3, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages GeneDx investors to contact the firm for more information. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. KTMC has recovered over $25 billion for our clients and the classes they represent. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. The complaint in this matter was not filed by KTMC. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] GERALD MACDONALD: Parshley Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Richard Parshley, in his individual capacity and for himself and all other partners of RED RABBIT HOLDINGS, LP, RED RABBIT EQUITY, LP, RED RABBIT ROCKS, LP, RED RABBIT VENTURE CAPITAL, LP, and RED RABBIT CARNEGIE, LP, similarly situated, and all other members of TECHNOKING ENTERPRISES, LLC, similarly situated, WILLIAM SERWON, in his individual capacity and for himself and all other partners of RED RABBIT HOLDINGS, LP, and MICHAEL PISKURICH, in his individual capacity and for himself and all other partners of RED RABBIT CARNEGIE, LP similarly situated v. GERALD MACDONALD, JR., TRACEY L. MACDONALD, CARTER MACDONALD, RED RABBIT HOLDINGS, LP, RED RABBIT EQUITY, LP, RED RABBIT ROCKS, LP, RED RABBIT VENTURE CAPITAL, LP, RED RABBIT CARNEGIE, LP, and TECHNOKING ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 25-15925 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03939. On October 22, 2025, Mr. Parshley, individually and on behalf of the Entity Defendants, filed a complaint against Mr. MacDonald and the Entity Defendants (the "Complaint") asserting state law derivative claims on behalf of the Entity Defendants against Mr. MacDonald alleging conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, and asserting a state law direct claim by Mr. Parshley against Mr. MacDonald alleging breach of contract arising from a cooperation agreement relating to the governance and operation of the Entity Defendants. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert, for the first time, a federal law claim against Mr. MacDonald, Ms. MacDonald, and Carter alleging they violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, in addition to state law claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey D. Bukowski, Esq. Thomas A. Youngman, Esq. SMITH BUKOWSKI LLC 1050 Spring Street, Suite 1 Wyomissing, PA 19610 Phone: (610) 685-1600 Email: JBukowski@SmithBukowski.com TYoungman@SmithBukowski.com GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lavonte Williams, individually, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. F Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, Gestamp North America, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0004041 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Gestamp -- https://www.gestamp.com/en/home -- is an international group dedicated to the design, development and manufacture of metal automotive components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com GOLCHIN FOODS: Pagan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golchin Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Pagan on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golchin Foods, LLC, Case No. CU26-04895 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., May 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Tort: Business." Golchin -- https://ofdusa.com/ -- has been the household brand of choice for premium, specialty, ethnic spices, herbs and other specialty food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Braun, Esq. MULLEN & FILIPPI, LLP 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 710 Los Angeles, CA 90034-7163 Phone: 310-606-8805 GOPHER RESOURCE LLC: Evans Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gopher Resource, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Derrell Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gopher Resource, LLC, ECP Gopher Holdings, LP, Energy Capital Partners Management, LP, Case No. 27-CV-26-9245 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., May 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Gopher Resource -- https://www.gopherresource.com/ -- is a national environmental solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS: Jones Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Graco Children's Products, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daphne Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., Newell Brands DTC, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02897-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Graco Children's Products Inc. -- https://www.gracobaby.com/ -- is an American baby products company based in High Point, North Carolina.[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 - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC - SEATTLE 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 949-1190 Email: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45002 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com GRADY MEMORIAL: No Consent on Installed Tracking Tools, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03290-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 12, 2026) seeks to address the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. d/b/a Google. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to patients, the Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its Website, including, upon information and belief, the Patient Portal. These Tracking Tools, such as pixels, web beacons, or cookies, track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Google, alleges the suit. Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation provides medical and surgical hospital services. The Hospital offers emergency care, women's health services, cardiology, orthopedic, and oncology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com GREEN KNIGHT: Whitfield Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Whitfield, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. Green Knight Security, Inc., a California Corporation; Steven M O'Neal, an individual; and Does 1-10, inclusive. Case No. 26STCV18991 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 15, 2026) is a civil action against the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations they have sustained. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants from in or around July 2025 to in or around October 2025. reen Knight is a Security Company specializing in providing security services to a wide variety of businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Navid Barahmand, Esq. BARAHMAND LAW GROUP 23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 2034 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 574-3355 E-mail: Navid@barahmandlaw.com - and - Justin Cohanghadosh, Esq. COHANGHADOSH LAW, APC 23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 2034 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 206-728 E-mail: Jc@cohanghadoshlaw.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order to continue the hearing currently set for June 24, 2026, to July 8, 2026 at 10:00 AM to allow the parties sufficient time to file their opposition and reply briefs. Briefing shall proceed in accordance with the Local Rules. On June 8, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the declarations of fifteen putative class members and Lawrence W. Beall filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass, automotive and building products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bizfJk at no extra charge.[CC] HART MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LESTER DIAZ; and MILTON GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HART MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; and FRANCISCO J. ESTRADA, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24093-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as aircon mechanics. Hart Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is a construction company specializing in Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com HEAVEN HILL: Faces Palacio Suit Over Adulterated Lunazul Tequilas ----------------------------------------------------------------- FABIO MAURICIO PALACIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-24191 (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2026) contends that the Defednant's Lunazul Tequilas are adulterated. The Defendant markets its Lunazul line of tequilas as "100% DE AGAVE." This designation tells consumers that Defendant distills Lunazul products using only the tequilana weber blue variety of agave (Blue Weber agave), which is regarded as the gold standard. Like cognac and champagne, true tequila is a product of origin, native to select, designated tequila producing regions within five states in Mexico: Jalisco, Guanajuato, Michoacan, Nayarit, and Tamaulipas. The Defendant's Lunazul line of tequilas includes no fewer than seven agave spirits labeled "100% DE AGAVE": Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Cristalino, Humoso, Primero Reposado, and Primero Plata. The Defendant sells Lunazul Tequilas nationwide and the entire product line derives from the initial distillation of Lunazul Blanco. All Lunazul Tequilas, that is, are distilled from the same base spirit. Consumers pay a premium for 100% Blue Weber agave tequilas in part because Blue Weber is not harvested until the plants reach full maturity, which can take five to eight years. Farmers must also grow the plants within certain areas, employing traditional harvesting practices, says the suit. In or around 2018, faced with a Blue Weber shortage that caused prices to rise, the Defendant began to adulterate its Lunazul Blanco base spirit with non-agave sugars to maintain (or increase) its profit margins. Consequently, Lunazul Tequilas are no longer 100% Blue Weber agave. Defendant continues, however, to market Lunazul Tequilas Products as "100% DE AGAVE" on its labels, in its advertising, and on its website, and still charges premium prices, knowing that the tequila in its bottles does not warrant the designation. Testing of Lunazul Blanco, Lunazul Reposado, and Lunazul Anejo confirms that Lunazul Tequilas contain material amounts of ethanol not derived from agave plants, i.e., Lunazul Tequilas are enhanced with ethanol other than that obtained from Blue Weber agave and are not "100% de agave." As all Lunazul Tequilas derive from Lunazul Blanco as a base spirit, all Lunazul Tequilas are similarly adulterated. The Defendant is not alone. In recent years, interested groups and journalists in Mexico have reported widespread fraud in the tequila industry and discovered that many major tequila producers and distributors have been adulterating their "100% de agave" Blue Weber tequilas. HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC. is a private family-owned and -operated American distillery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Maland, Esq. Robert M. Stein, Esq. Sandra E. Mejia, Esq. Catherine L. Wachtell, Esq. RENNERT VOGEL MANDLER & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. Miami Tower, Suite 2900 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone (305) 577-4177 E-mail: dmaland@rvmrlaw.com rstein@rvmrlaw.com smejia@rvmrlaw.com cwachtell@rvmrlaw.com - and - Robert J. Neary, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Abe Andrew Bailey, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com abailey@kttlaw.com HILLCREST CONVALESCENT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Hillcrest Convalescent Center has agreed to a settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the nursing and assisted living provider failed to protect the private information of current and former patients and employees from a June 2024 data breach. The Hillcrest Convalescent Center class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 27, 2026. The agreement covers all living individuals in the United States whose private information was implicated in the June 2024 data breach. Court documents state that the private information of approximately 106,194 people was accessible in the data breach, including 20,000 individuals whose Social Security numbers were potentially compromised (the Group 1 settlement subclass). The court-approved website for the Hillcrest Convalescent Center data breach settlement can be found at HCCDataSettlement.com. Hillcrest settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between June 27, 2024 and August 26, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses from fraud or identity theft and the costs of credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. Additionally, class members can file a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. In lieu of any other benefit, Group 1 settlement class members can instead file a claim form to receive an estimated $50 cash payment, with no proof required. Court documents state that class members whose Social Security numbers were not among the private information potentially compromised in the incident cannot submit a claim for the alternative cash payment, but can still submit a claim form for CyEx credit monitoring services and/or a documented-loss payment. To file a Hillcrest Convalescent Center settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN 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 settlement administrator. All Hillcrest settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 26, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Hillcrest Convalescent Center settlement following a hearing on August 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Hillcrest Convalescent Center class action lawsuit alleged that the North Carolina-based operator of nursing homes and medical centers failed to implement adequate cybersecurity safeguards to protect current and former patients' and employees' sensitive information, which allegedly led to a data breach on or around June 27, 2024. Per court documents, private information potentially exposed due to the breach included names, addresses, financial account information, dates of birth, driver's license and government-issued ID numbers, medical information, health insurance information, and for a subset of class members, Social Security numbers. [GN] HOUSE OF BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. House of Brands LLC d/b/a Theo Grace, Case No. 0:26-cv-02963 (D. Minn., June 16, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.doterra.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HURON LODGE: Court Flexibly Defines Period in COVID-19 Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario Superior Court has preferred the more flexibly defined period proposed by the plaintiff for a claim in a class proceeding concerning the Huron Lodge long-term care home's infection prevention and control (IPAC) processes. In this class action and five others against individual long-term care homes, the parties and their counsel agreed on a certification order's terms, except for the third paragraph relating to the present action. The paragraph stated that the claim concerned IPAC at Huron Lodge. The plaintiff's proposed version included a "period leading up to and during the Class Period," while the defendants' suggested version specified a "3-week period leading up to and during the Class Period." In Adamo v. Huron Lodge Long Term Care Home, 2026 ONSC 3345, the parties and their counsel agreed that: -- The lodge's first COVID-19 outbreak happened in December 2020, with no known COVID-19 cases occurring from the pandemic's general outbreak in March 2020 until December 2020 -- This action's discoveries addressed the lodge's IPAC measures and its readiness for an infectious disease such as COVID-19 The plaintiff's counsel did not want to define the period leading up to the lodge's first infections. They said their claim of systemic failure against Huron Lodge and other long-term care homes centred on the lodge's preparation for the pandemic in the months and perhaps even years preceding the first COVID-19 cases. The plaintiff's counsel alleged that the lack of preparedness led to the injuries and deaths that eventually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the defendants' counsel, three weeks before the first outbreak would be an appropriate cut-off date for discovery examination questions because three weeks roughly corresponded with the COVID-19 incubation period. The defendants' counsel asserted that any questions tackling a time before the three-week mark would be causally irrelevant to any injury of a Huron Lodge resident. Plaintiff's proposal preferred The Ontario Superior Court of Justice preferred the plaintiff's flexibly defined period, given the following duality: "IPAC processes that hark back many months before the first outbreak in a given long term care home and whose effects continue to be felt during the outbreak vs. IPAC matters that were a matter of the long term care home's history but that changed by the time the first outbreak came to the home and are not causally connected to the outbreak." The court found that the interpretation and application of the period open for discovery questions should be in the context of "the COVID outbreak that actually came to be." The court added that discoveries should assess the relevance of any IPAC matter preceding the first outbreak on a question-by-question basis. "Those questions are to be framed with a view to fully exploring the IPAC issues at the Defendant home while at the same time avoiding an exploration of matters lacking causal connection to the eventual outbreak at the home," wrote Justice Edward M. Morgan for the court. The court acknowledged that both the plaintiff's counsel and the defendants' counsel were partly correct. The court accepted that a long-term care home's preparedness for infectious disease control was indeed an issue in the systemic failure claim and related claims. However, the court ruled that such preparedness at a time predating the first outbreak or the incubation period would be an issue in the claim only if the state of preparedness actually affected future outbreaks. The court emphasized that this was an action for compensation for actual harm to the class members, not a regulatory inquiry into the long-term care home's overall management. [GN] HYATT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 13, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SEYBOLD, et al., v. HYATT CORPORATION dba CARMEL VALLEY RANCH, Case No. 5:26-cv-02103-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered case management order as follows: Event Date Submission of stipulated protective order June 23, 2026 and ESI order: The Defendant's deadline to file a motion July 10, 2026 to compel arbitration: Completion of pre-certification fact March 12, 2027 discovery: Motion for class certification due: April 13, 2027 Opposition to class certification due: May 18, 2027 Deadline to complete ADR: May 31, 2027 Reply re class certification due: June 22, 2027 Class certification hearing: July 13, 2027 With regard to the Parties' ADR deadline, the Parties are referred to private mediation. The Parties are to select a private mediator promptly. The Defendant is a leading global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nPH4iS at no extra charge.[CC] INSTRUCTURE INC: Costa Sues Private Data Breach on Canva -------------------------------------------------------- LUCIUS COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00480-DBP (D. Utah, May 26, 2026) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it. On April 29, 2026, Instructure first detected unauthorized access to its systems. On May 1, 2026, Instructure confirmed that cybercriminals group ShinyHunters were behind the attack that caused service disruption on April 30, 2026. On May 3, 2026, the said cybercriminal group uploaded 3.65 terabytes of data, and shared a ransom note, claiming to have exfiltrated 275 million individuals' data and billions of private messages. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of herself and the proposed Class for, among other things, negligence and negligence per se. The Plaintiff also seeks to hold Instructure responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and millions of similarly situated individuals due to its inadequate data security measures, and to obtain injunctive relief requiring, among other things, the implementation of security measures sufficient to protect the sensitive private information that remains in Instructure's custody and control. Headquartered in Salt Lake, UT, Instructure, Inc. is an educational technology developer and publisher that provides Canvas Learning Management System. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. Adam M. Pace, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP, PC 22 East 100 South, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com pace@hatchpc.com - and - Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. Ruston Pritchard, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, LA 70139 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com rpritchard@murray-lawfirm.com IRHYTHM HOLDINGS: 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 iRhythm 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 iRhythm data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. iRhythm Security Incident: What Happened? iRhythm Holdings, which has served millions of patients through its Zio ECG monitors and data management solutions, has reported a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the SEC filing, iRhythm identified unauthorized activity involving third-party-hosted business applications on June 8, 2026. The following day, iRhythm was contacted by a threat actor who claimed to have stolen proprietary data, patient protected health information, and other personal information, demanding a ransom in exchange for the data remaining undisclosed to the public. iRhythm has confirmed the exfiltration of certain data following the initial threats, but its investigation into the types and amount of data stolen is ongoing. According to a statement published on the company's website, the iRhythm Holdings data breach did not impact the company's clinical or medical device systems. Those affected by the iRhythm data breach will be notified as the investigation continues. What You Can Do After the iRhythm Data Breach If your information was exposed in the iRhythm 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 iRhythm 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] JACKPOCKET CASINO: 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 Jackpocket Casino 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 Jackpocket Casino data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Jackpocket Casino Security Incident: What Happened? Jackpocket Casino, an online gambling platform available to users located in New Jersey, has reported that a data breach impacting one of its third-party vendors may have exposed sensitive personal information. A sample notification letter states that the company behind the platform, Jackpocket Interactive Gaming, was first alerted to a cybersecurity incident involving information stored by a third-party provider on May 14, 2026. A subsequent investigation concluded that usernames, first and last names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses, postal codes, and Social Security numbers may have been viewed by an unauthorized actor in the Jackpocket Casino data breach. Jackpocket Casino's own systems reportedly were not compromised in the security incident. What You Can Do After the Jackpocket Casino Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Jackpocket Casino 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 Jackpocket Casino to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] JJ RESTAURATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Colina Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO COLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JJ RESTAURATION AND CONSTRUCTION, CORP.; and JORGE ELIZONDO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24160-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Colina was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. JJ Restauration and Construction, Corp. is a full-service restoration, construction and landscaping company operating out of Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com KNOCKAROUND LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KNOCKAROUND, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05061 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.knockaround.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 2, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Obsidian Paso Robles Sunglasses from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Obsidian Paso Robles Sunglasses, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: frames and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Knockaround online retail store, as well as the Knockaround interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KRAMPADE LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KRAMPADE, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05062 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.krampade.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on April 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Krampade 2K Fiber ZERO Single Sports Drink Powder from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Krampade 2K Fiber ZERO Single Sports Drink Powder, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: sports drinks, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Krampade 2K Fiber ZERO Single Sports Drink Powder. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Krampade 2K Fiber ZERO Single Sports Drink Powder but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Krampade online retail store, as well as the Krampade interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal L+M DEVELOPMENT: 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 L+M 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 L+M data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. L+M Security Incident: What Happened? L+M Development Partners, a real estate development, construction, and property management company, has reported a data breach that may have compromised sensitive personal information. A report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation on June 11, 2026 indicates that Social Security numbers, medical record data, and driver's license details were among the information potentially involved in the L+M Development Partners data breach. Those whose information may have been accessed or acquired without authorization in the L+M data breach are being notified in writing. L+M has around $20 billion in development and investments and manages over 23,000 units primarily in New York and New Jersey through its subsidiary, C+C Apartment Management. What You Can Do After the L+M Data Breach If your information was exposed in the L+M 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 L+M 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] LA LUZ DEL CAMINO: Sued Over Industrialized Immigration Factory --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GUADALUPE DIAZ TOSCANO, individually and as class representative v. ALEXANDRA LOZANO KENNEDY, an individual; LA LUZ DEL CAMINO LEGAL, PLLC, f/k/a ALEXANDRA LOZANO IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC, a Washington professional limited liability company; EN SOLIDARIDAD, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SALUD TOTAL, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; AMIGA LAWYERS LLC, a Washington limited liability company; ALLY LOZANO, LLC, a Washington limited liability company., Case No. 2:26-cv-02088 (W.D. Wash., June 15, 2026) is a federal class action brought seeking comprehensive civil remedies for a a multi-million-dollar industrialized immigration factory disguised as a legitimate law practice. Operating out of its corporate headquarters in Tukwila Washington, the Lozano Firm has systematically extracted tens of millions of dollars from thousands of the most vulnerable, low-income monolingual Spanish-speaking undocumented consumers across the United States. The core of this action does not address any individual legal malpractice or the stand alone, technical merits of individual petitions; rather, the Class seeks redress for an intentional, systematic business architecture designed by Defendants to maximize corporate revenue through the complete abdication of an attorney's oath of loyalty. The Defendants operated a high-volume immigration law firm using a uniform, standardized system a practice that did the following: (a) concealed from clients that their immigration petitions were VAWA self-petitions requiring allegations of domestic abuse or extreme cruelty, or "T-Visa" applications that required allegations of forced labor or involuntary servitude, among other things; (b) delegated all substantive legal work to non attorney staff; (c) used non-attorney drafting personnel and template-driven processes to generate abuse narratives without meaningful client participation; (d) prepared and/or filed petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") containing allegations that clients say they never made, and without attorney contact, review or client understanding; (e) charged thousands of dollars for this process while failing to disclose material additional costs; and (f) unreasonably withheld client files and case information when clients discovered or questioned what had been prepared or filed in their names. Further, to bring in clients, Defendants used social media to defraud vulnerable immigrants through unfair and deceptive practices. Plaintiff is requesting equitable fee forfeiture, disgorgement, restitution, and damages arising from Defendants' systematic scheme to defraud vulnerable immigrants, says the suit. Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Diaz Toscano is a natural person, citizen of Mexico and resident of the state of Washington, who retained the Lozano Firm for immigration representation. Camino Legal is an immigration law firm based in Tukwila, Washington, with additional offices and satellite offices across the United States and employees in the United States, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Damian S. Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 3317 36th Avenue South, Unit B Seattle, WA 98144 Telephone: (206) 290-5148 Facsimile: (206) 260-9010 - and - Manuel F. Rios, III, Esq. RIOS IMMIGRATION DEFENSE, P.S. Colman Building 1109 1st Ave Suite 212 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 970-2781 LAS VEGAS: Agrees to Settle Ticket Class Action Lawsuit for $3MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that Individuals who purchased or possessed a ticket to the 2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix and attempted to attend the free practice session 2 scheduled for Nov. 16, 2023, may be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. The event sold 32,219 tickets. Liberty Media Corp. and Las Vegas Grand Prix Inc. agreed to pay $3,047,986 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed that after an accident delayed the FP2 session, Las Vegas Grand Prix personnel removed ticket holders from the viewing areas before the session began and did not provide a refund for the missed event. Who are the class members? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They purchased a Thursday-only ticket or a three-day ticket directly from Las Vegas Grand Prix Inc. or received a transferred Thursday-only or three-day ticket originally purchased directly from LVGP. -- They attended Day One of the 2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix by scanning their ticket for entry before 11:59:59 p.m. on Nov. 16, 2023. There are two main groups of class members: -- Individuals who purchased tickets directly from LVGP or through Ticketmaster (including primary and secondary markets): These members do not need to file a claim; they will receive payment automatically. -- Individuals who received a ticket from someone else (not purchased directly from LVGP or Ticketmaster): These members must submit a claim form to receive an award. Who is excluded from the class? -- Individuals or entities who purchased or received a ticket LVGP sold internally to LVGP and Liberty personnel or associated individuals. -- Individuals or entities who purchased or received a ticket LVGP sold to F1 teams, F1's partners, LVGP's partners and resellers as designated in LVGP's internal systems. -- Individuals or entities who received a transferred Paddock Club ticket, a certain type of three-day ticket sold directly to certain class members. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members can receive a pro rata cash payment. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the type of ticket the class member purchased and the total number of eligible class members and claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate Class members who purchased tickets directly from LVGP or through Ticketmaster, including primary and secondary markets, do not need to file a claim to receive a settlement payment. Class members who received a ticket from someone else must submit a claim to receive a settlement payment. These class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 Required proof and claim information -- All class members must provide documentation showing the number of tickets purchased and/or resold and the price paid for the tickets required. This may include paper receipts, email receipts, credit card statements or bank statements. -- Claimants who purchased tickets with cash or do not have a receipt must include a statement detailing the date, amount paid, and name of the seller. -- To submit a claim online, claimants must provide the notice ID and confirmation code from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Electronic payment -- Paper check mailed to the last known address or address provided on claim form Settlement fund breakdown The $3,047,986 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $76,306 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $914,396 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each ($12,500 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: June 28, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 27, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Nov. 4, 2026 When is the Las Vegas Grand Prix ticket settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members within 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged that after an accident delayed the free practice session 2 at the 2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix, defendants failed to retain sufficient staff to ensure fan safety and removed ticket holders from the viewing areas. The plaintiffs claimed this amounted to a breach of contract because staff revoked admission without cause and without a refund. Liberty Media Corp. and Las Vegas Grand Prix, Inc. deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: August 27, 2026 [GN] LEASEFLORIDA HIALEAH: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEASEFLORIDA HIALEAH LLC; and AAHR LLC D/B/A EZ SUPERMARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24001 (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property at 400 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida 33010, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Leaseflorida Hialeah LLC a real estate specialized investment firm that develops, and invests in real estate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com LEGACY CABINETS: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY CABINETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00990-MHH (N.D. Ala., June 9, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Legacy Cabinets, Inc. manufactures wood fixtures. The Company produces kitchen and bathroom cabinets made from Oak, Maple, Cherry, Hickory, and fiberboard. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Bernard Brannan, III, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN BIRMINGHAM, PLLC 216 Summit Blvd., Suite 300 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (659) 903-6013 Facsimile: (650) 903-6032 - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 Email: medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com LIGHTHOUSE ESTATES: Cervantez-Tkac Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL CERVANTEZ-TKAC and SIMAYA INNOVATIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VAN LAURENCE BARKER; JOSHUA JAMES KENNEDY; SIYUAN ZHENG; LIGHTHOUSE ESTATES LLC; and STARPOINT HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00280-CHB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the Class as to defaulted Defendants Lighthouse Estates LLC and Starpoint Holdings LLC; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; (3) appointing Loftus & Eisenberg, Ltd. as class counsel under Rule 23(g); and (4) directing the parties to submit a proposed plan and form of notice. The proposed Class is defined as: "All natural persons and entities who, between Jan. 1, 2023 and the date of class certification, purchased one or more promissory notes, joint-venture interests, or funding agreements originated by Lighthouse Estates LLC, Starpoint Holdings LLC, or any Barker-controlled affiliated entity in connection with the financing of real-property acquisitions, and who have not been repaid the full principal plus contractually promised return on each instrument, with the standard exclusions for Defendants and their affiliates, officers, and families." The Class consists of at least 125 PML investors — individuals who committed personal savings, retirement accounts, and self-directed IRAs, not institutions — whose class-wide loss exceeds $24 million. Lighthouse is a real estate investment and property-flipping firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIro0D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander N. Loftus, Esq. LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD. 181 W. Madison Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-6625 E-mail: alex@loftusandeisenberg.com - and - Michele D. Henry, Esq. MICHELE HENRY LAW, P.C. 517 W. Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 536-0085 E-mail: mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Avalos Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS AVALOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-05095 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for violations of state and common laws in connection with Defendant's failures to allow for the unlawful breach of personally identifiable and sensitive information during the applicable statutory period and continuing through the present day. This is an action against Defendant MSG for their recidivist disregard for consumer privacy and MSG's complete and utter failure to properly secure and safeguard PII including but not limited to the information of up to 26 million consumers, including Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information (the Data Breach). Unfortunately, Defendant has a tempestuous history with respect to data privacy. The Defendant is infamous for collecting biometric facial recognition data from each consumer which enters into the Arena. Despite a slew of lawsuits regarding this conduct, as well as consternation from privacy advocates and legislators in New York, the Arena -- at the direction of its owner James Dolan -- continues to collect biometric information from each visitor, the suit says. Madison Square Garden, which is owned by the Defendant as well as its famous tenants (the NBA champion New York Knicks and the New York Rangers), is well regarded as "one of the world's most famous sports arenas." The arena is the sole professional sports venue located within Manhattan in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 626 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com MAMMA MIA: Blind Consumers Can't Access Online Store, Morris Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAMMA MIA COVERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01017-LA (E.D. Wis., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.mammamiacovers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mamma Mia Covers, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MASSIMOS CONTRACTING: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS A. GONZALEZ, OSCAR EMILIO CARDONA GARCIA, JULIO ISAEL GAMEZ REYES, EKLIN DE JESUS CASTANO BUSTAMANTE, CESAR IVAN VEGA JACHO, ANIBAL REYES GAMEZ, DENNIS STEVEN MOROCHO UZHCA, JOSE LUIS PIMBOMAZA CHUNCHA, ISMAEL CHINGO GARCIA, TEODORO HERNANDEZ SANCHEZ, BAYRON ADAN PEREZ ALVARADO, and ELISEO FELIPE COTUC SOCOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MASSIMOS CONTRACTING, CORP., and MASSIMO MAFFEI, ATHENA VICTORIA URENA-GONZALEZ, and GEZIM BUNJAJ, as individuals, Case No. 1:26-cv-05044 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiffs worked approximately 53 hours per week from July 2025 until in or around September 2025, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Massimos is a general contracting company based in Harrison, New York, that specializes in concrete work, masonry, and general home renovations. Massimo Maffei, owns and operates Massimos Contracting, Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 MASTEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burke Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NORWOOD BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTEC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24023-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, social security number and financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and have not informed Plaintiff and Class members of that information, says the suit. MasTec, Inc. is a specialty contractor operating across a range of industries. The Company activities are the building, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of utility and communications infrastructure, including electrical utility transmission and distribution, wind farms, solar farms, renewable energy and natural gas infrastructure, wireless, and wireline. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL, 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Modified to July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order modifying class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiff's Deadline to File: July 31, 2026 (1) Motion for Class Certification and (2) Expert Reports Related to Class Certification: The Defendant's Deadline to File: (1) Sept. 30, 2026 Response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and (2) Expert Reports Related to Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Nov. 20, 2026 Certification: Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JI2qmh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. Sean Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com MEUNDIES INC: Intercepts Website Users' Personal Info, Gray Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEUNDIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-at-01023 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated Defendant's website, meundies.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, LLC, TikTok Ltd., Snap Inc., and AppLovin Corp. in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. According to the complaint, when consumers visit the Website Defendant warrants to its consumers that its Website cookies "do not store directly personal information." Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance otherwise, the Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers personally identifiable information, and product purchase information to the Third Parties. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII. The Plaintiff maintained active accounts with Google, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat. When creating her Google, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat accounts, Plaintiff provided them with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. The Plaintiff used the same device to access the Website that she did to access her Google, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat accounts. On or around August 2025, while within California, the Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website and purchased bralettes. Despite Defendant's representations of confidentiality, Plaintiff's communications during this visit were intercepted and disclosed to Third Parties through the Tracking Technologies, including communications that contained Plaintiff's identity (personal information) and purchase information. The Defendant knowingly and intentionally incorporated a host of tracking technologies for marketing, advertising, and analytics purposes on the Website without disclosing the true extent of their functionality to its customers, including the tracking technologies provided by Third Parties, the suit contends. MeUndies is an underwear and loungewear retailer. MeUndies uses its Website as an online marketplace, where consumers can browse, and purchase various products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com MISSISSIPPI: Solicitation Law Unconstitutional, Black et al. Allege ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY BLACK, PRESTON OWENS, and RACHEL WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BO LUCKEY, in his official capacity as Chief of the Capitol Police, a unit of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and SEAN TINDELL, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00377-DPJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., May 27, 2026) alleges that Defendant's Safe Solicitation Act has violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs maintain that the Safe Solicitation Act prevents people in need from exercising their First Amendment right to engage in charitable solicitation without first requesting permission from the government to speak and paying the government to exercise their First Amendments rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this class action to request that the court declare the Safe Solicitation Act unconstitutional. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety is an administrative department responsible for a variety of tasks, including issuing driver's licenses and firearms permits, and patrolling on roads and highways. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Tom, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSISSIPPI P.O. Box 1142 Jackson, MS 39225 Telephone: (601) 354-3408 Facsimile: (601) 355-6465 E-mail: jtom@aclu-ms.org MONEYLION INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Interest Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that three California consumers filed a proposed class action against MoneyLion, accusing the financial technology company of concealing the true cost of its loans by labeling interest charges as turbo fees, tips and membership fees while advertising some products as carrying "0% APR." In the lawsuit filed Monday, June 15, in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the consumers claim MoneyLion's lending platform systematically charges borrowers fees that function as interest but are excluded from the annual percentage rates and finance charges disclosed to consumers. "MoneyLion markets itself as a consumer-friendly financial platform offering small-dollar loans and cash advances to financially vulnerable consumers," the consumers state. "In reality, MoneyLion systematically imposes charges that function as interest while misrepresenting them as non-finance charges to obscure the true price of borrowing." Plaintiffs Elena Bisquera of Atascadero, Jason Jones of Corona and Chris Valencia of Sugarloaf seek to represent a class of California borrowers who paid fees in connection with MoneyLion loans and cash advances. According to the consumers, filed by attorney Noah Heinz of Pak Heinz, MoneyLion's business model depends on these fraudulent fees. The suit targets two of the company's products: InstaCash and Credit Builder loans. The plaintiffs say MoneyLion promotes InstaCash as a source of emergency cash for expenses such as "unexpected vet bills or a last-minute date night." The app advertises the product as "0% APR cash advances up to $500, deposited in seconds," with repayment generally due within two weeks. But consumers say they were charged a "turbo fee" ranging from 49 cents to $8.99, depending on the amount borrowed. According to the plaintiffs, the fee is effectively unavoidable because it is presented as the default option during the borrowing process. Consumers who decline the fee learn their funds will not arrive instantly but instead may take five days to reach their accounts. "Given the advertising, naming, purpose and fourteen-day repayment period of InstaCash, few consumers are seeking it out for an expense five days in the future," the plaintiffs wrote. "Getting cash five days later is simply a different and inferior product that fails to live up to MoneyLion's claims and advertising for InstaCash." The plaintiffs also challenge MoneyLion's practice of requesting tips from borrowers. According to them, the app automatically suggests tip amounts tied to the size of the advance and repeatedly encourages users to contribute even after they decline. The plaintiffs say MoneyLion uses messages such as "We're all in this together," "Looks like we didn't get a tip last time!" and "We could really use a tip for last time" to encourage payments. The plaintiffs argue the tips are not gratuities in any ordinary sense because they are paid directly to MoneyLion rather than to individual workers. "The 'tip' does not go to a service worker or deliveryman, but simply pays MoneyLion to lend money," they say in the complaint. When turbo fees and tips are included in the cost of borrowing, the consumers claim the actual interest rates skyrocket. They offer in the complaint an example of a consumer who borrows $100, pays an $8.99 turbo fee and a $10 tip, then repays the loan within 14 days. According to the plaintiffs, that transaction would carry an effective APR of 495%. The plaintiffs also target MoneyLion's Credit Builder loans, which are marketed as products designed to help consumers improve their credit histories. Under that program, borrowers can obtain loans ranging from $300 to $1,000 with stated APRs between 5.99% and 29.99%. But the plaintiffs say borrowers do not actually receive the full loan proceeds. Instead, much of the money is placed into a reserve account that remains inaccessible until the loan is paid off. Bisquera claims she took out an $899 Credit Builder loan but received only $100 immediately. The remaining $799 was deposited into a reserve account controlled by MoneyLion. The plaintiffs say borrowers must also pay monthly membership fees ranging from approximately $20 to $29 throughout the life of the loan. While MoneyLion characterizes those charges as membership fees associated with additional services, the plaintiffs contend the fees are really finance charges because consumers cannot obtain Credit Builder loans without them. According to the plaintiffs, including those monthly fees dramatically alters the loans. Bisquera claims she ultimately would have paid more than $1,260 on her $899 loan, including at least $240 in membership fees. Beyond the Truth in Lending Act claims, the plaintiffs accuse MoneyLion of violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by requiring borrowers to authorize automatic withdrawals from their bank accounts as a condition of receiving loans. They also say MoneyLion's practices violate California usury laws because the fees, tips and membership charges should be treated as interest. "Whatever usury limit applies, MoneyLion exceeded it routinely, once 'tips,' 'monthly membership fees' and 'turbo fees' are properly categorized as 'charges,'" the plaintiffs wrote. The plaintiffs also assert claims under California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, arguing borrowers were misled into believing they were receiving low-cost or interest-free credit products. The proposed class would include California residents who obtained loans, cash advances or other extensions of credit from MoneyLion and paid fees including turbo fees, tips or membership charges. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NNOX) securities during the period of March 31, 2025 through April 17, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Nano-X investments, you have until August 11, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/nano-x-imaging-ltd What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) Nano-X overstated purported efficiency gains achieved in its operations, as well as the purported increased demand for its products; (ii) in reality, Nano-X's production and manufacturing operations were poorly aligned with demand for the Company's products; (iii) as a result, Nano-X was experiencing significantly increased operating expenses and cash burn; and (iv) the foregoing significantly increased the likelihood that Nano-X would be forced to take disruptive remedial measures with respect to its manufacturing operations, entailing significant restructuring and impairment charges. On April 20, 2026, Nano-X issued a press release announcing its Q4 2025 financial results and business updates. Nano-X reported, inter alia, a Q4 net loss of $33.4 million, mainly due to a $17.5 million charge attributed to impairment of long-lived assets following a restructuring initiative at its Korean chip manufacturing facility. In explaining the restructuring charge, the press release acknowledged that Nano-X needed to "shift[] to a more efficient outsourced production model that is better aligned with current and anticipated demand." The same press release also announced that Nano-X's then-Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Ran Daniel, would step down as CFO, effective July 31, 2026. The same day, during a related earnings call to discuss these results, Nano-X's Chief Executive Officer, Erez Meltzer, likewise disclosed that Defendants needed "to reduce our Korean operation's OpEx [operating expenses] and cash burn and improve efficiency", while reiterating the need to "transition to a more efficient outsourced production model better aligned with current and projected demand." On this news, the price of Nano-X shares declined by $0.70 per share, or approximately 25%, from $2.85 per share on April 17, 2026 to close at $2.15 on April 20, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] NETCREDIT: Castleberry Sues Over Alleged Unlawful Credit Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC A. CASTLEBERRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETCREDIT, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01719-L (N.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In June 2024, the Plaintiff applied for a line of credit from Defendant. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's credit application. However, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial, depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on, says the suit. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, NetCredit provides credit and financial opportunities to consumers across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com NETLINE CORP: Regas Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER REGAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETLINE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12544 (D. Mass., June 4, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. In its regular course of business operations, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. The Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a data breach victim, having received confirmation via a notice letter sent by Defendant on May 27, 20261, informing him that his data was compromised. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Netline Corporation is a comprehensive lead generation solution that generates leads with B2B content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com NEW LOOK: Cervantes et al. Sue Over Sensitive Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CERVANTES, GEORGINA DI DIO, AND JACEY FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW LOOK SKIN CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01305 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2026) arises out of the alleged unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs' and other website visitors' sensitive health information. Through the Defendant's website, patients can research medical and dermatological treatments, book appointments, make inquiries, purchase products, and apply for payment plans. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other visitors to the website, their private personal and health information was not being kept private. Instead, New Look collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiffs and other patients, to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc., through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of sensitive health information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the sensitive health information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their sensitive health information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now seek to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Headquartered in Los Angeles County, California, New Look Skin Center, Inc. offers invasive and non-invasive cosmetic and reconstructive treatments at its four California locations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street, 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com NEW YORK, NY: Jefferson Must File Class Cert Bid by June 25 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jefferson v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07212-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order the following: 1. By June 25, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification (the "MCC"). 2. By July 30, 2026, the Defendants shall file their opposition to the MCC and cross-motion to dismiss (the "MTD"). 3. By Aug. 6, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file her reply in further support of the MCC and her opposition to the MTD. 4. By Aug. 13, 2026, the Defendants shall file their reply in further support of the MTD. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O0u3YB at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Wins Partial Denial of Cannabis Injunction ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Variscite NY Four, LLC and Variscite NY Five, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01599 (AMN/PJE) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order denying in part Plaintiffs' renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that New York's Adult Use Application Program violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The Second Circuit had earlier vacated the Court's denial of preliminary relief and held that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their challenge to the ordering of the December Queue, finding New York's extra priority regime discriminatory in favor of a sliver of the in-state market. On remand, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion seeking to enjoin issuance of retail cannabis licenses under the Adult Use Application Program and to compel closure of already-issued licenses. The Court addressed the motion only as to the December Pool, having held the November Pool portion in abeyance pending expedited discovery. Applying the typical preliminary injunction standard, the Court found Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, consistent with the Second Circuit's mandate regarding the December Queue's ordering. However, the Court concluded Plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm. Defendants represented that, in an abundance of caution, they have treated Plaintiffs identically to other applicants entitled to extra priority, according Plaintiffs three randomly assigned queue numbers. The Court found this voluntary change in treatment sufficiently altered the circumstances presented when Plaintiffs first sought injunctive relief, and noted that government defendants' representations that conduct has been discontinued are entitled to deference. Because a finding of no irreparable harm is dispositive, the Court did not address the remaining preliminary injunction factors. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion as to the December Pool, while noting Plaintiffs may renew their application should Defendants reverse course and no longer accord Plaintiffs' December applications extra priority. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied in part, and ordered the Clerk to serve a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties. A copy of the Court's Decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vL3uMM OAK VIEW GROUP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Oak View Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Oak View Group data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Oak View Group Security Incident: What Happened? Oak View Group (OVG), a sports and live entertainment venue management company, has disclosed a data breach affecting the sensitive personal information of contractors and vendors at OVG-managed venues. According to a sample notification letter, OVG discovered unauthorized access to its legacy systems on January 19, 2026. An investigation later determined that an unauthorized third party first accessed its systems on December 16, 2025 and exfiltrated certain files from its network. Names and taxpayer identification numbers were potentially compromised in the Oak View Group data breach. In addition, a report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation indicates that Social Security numbers may have been involved. The OVG data breach follows a 2023 incident that resulted in an $824,000 settlement for impacted parties. What You Can Do After the Oak View Group Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Oak View Group data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Oak View Group to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] OCHSNER CLINIC: Taylor Allowed to File Third Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY TAYLOR, V. OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01872-ASJ-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Donna Phillips Currault entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Court does not find amendment precluded by undue delay, bad faith, repeated failures to cure or undue prejudice. With regard to the fifth factor (futility), the arguments raised are identical to those currently pending before Judge St. John. The proposed new allegations do not in themselves render any claim futile, and this Court has no authority to address non-referred matters such as the bases for the Defendant's pending motions to dismiss. Prudence and conservation of resources of both the court and the parties dictate that the futility issue be resolved on the merits in context of the Rule 12 motion. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not have "substantial reason" to deny the Plaintiff's proposed amendment. The Plaintiff Kelly Taylor filed this putative class action against Defendants Ochsner Clinic Foundation and Dr. Andrew Matthews arising out of Dr. Matthews' alleged placement of hidden camera devices in restrooms throughout Ochsner’s main campus on Jefferson Highway. Ochsner is a non-profit academic healthcare system. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yhkzD7 at no extra charge.[CC] OPEN LENDING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to ANV Group Holdings ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firmheadquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Open Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: LPRO) related to its sale to ANV Group Holdings Ltd. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Open Lending shareholders are expected to receive $3.15 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/open-lending-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] OPTIMUM COMMUNICATIONS: Berger Seeks to Enjoin Tender Offer ----------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BERGER as trustee for THE PAUL BERGER REVOCABLE TRUST, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of OPTIMUM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff v. PATRICK DRAHI; DENNIS MATHEW; DEXTER GOEI; CHARLES STEWART; DENNIS OKHUIJSEN; SUSAN C. SCHNABEL; RAYMOND SVIDER; DAVID DRAHI; MARK SIROTA; MICHAEL PARKER; MICHAEL E. OLSEN; NEXT ALT S.A.R.L.; and NEXT PARTNER, L.P.; and OPTIMUM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2026-0766 (Del. Ch., June 9, 2026) is an action seeking to enjoin the Tender Offer until the Defendants disclose all material information and seeking damages for the unfair and self-interested Exchange Transaction that has already been completed. Optimum Communications, Inc. operates as a telecommunication and media company. The Company offers hybrid-fiber coaxial and fiber-to-the-home networks, including internet, TV, mobile plans, local news and voice offerings, data, and digital advertising services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com - and - Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Email: mbarry@gelaw.com cmackintosh@gelaw.com ORIGIN MATERIALS: Class Action Settlement in Soto Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO F. SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY, and JOHN BISSELL, Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order granting the lead plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of class action settlement and for approval of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. -- The court certifies, for the purposes of the Settlement only, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons and entities that purchased Origin Materials' publicly traded securities on the open market of a U.S. stock exchange during the March 7, 2023, through Aug. 9, 2023, Class Period and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) members of the Immediate Family of each Defendant; (iii) any person who was an officer or director of Origin Materials; (iv) any firm or entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) the Defendants' liability insurance carriers; (vi) any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of Origin Materials; (vii) all Origin Materials plans that are covered by ERISA; and (viii) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries, successors-in-interests, or assigns of any excluded person or entity in their respective capacity as such. -- The Court appoints Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and appoints Lead Counsel Bernstein Liebhard LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. -- Lead Counsel is awarded, on behalf of all the Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,250,000.00 (25% of the Settlement Fund). -- Lead Counsel is awarded litigation expenses in the amount of $170,866.90 for charges in connection with litigating the Action. The amount includes an $8,000.00 travel allowance in connection with attending two hearings and a $4,000.00 Lead Plaintiff award. -- In accordance with the PSLRA, the Court also awards Lead Plaintiff $4,000.00 for costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class as part of the Litigation Expense award. The Plaintiff brought this securities class action against defendants Origin Materials, Inc., John Bissell, and Richard Riley, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Origin is a carbon-negative materials company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xIRZci at no extra charge.[CC] OSANA CLEANING: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Gonzalez Due Nov. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez Gonzalez v. Osana Cleaning Corp., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-06107 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 31, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an order adopting the parties' proposed discovery schedule as follows: (i) Pre-class certification discovery demands shall be served by all Parties on or before July 9, 2026 ; (ii) Responses to pre-class certification discovery demands shall be served on or before August 8, 2026 ; (iii) Pre-class certification depositions shall be completed on or before September 8, 2026 ; (iv) Pre-class certification discovery shall be completed on or before October 11, 2026 ; and (v) Plaintiffs shall move for class certification on or before November 10, 2026. The parties shall file a joint status report on or before September 11, 2026. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Osana is a commercial cleaning business based in Miami, Florida.[CC] OVERLAKE HOSPITAL: Plaintiff's Bid to Remand Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. OVERLAKE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:25-cv-01711-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to remand and for leave to conduct discovery. The Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery is granted. The parties shall meet and confer regarding a joint discovery plan, including the scope of jurisdictional discovery, the deadline to file any discovery-related motions, and the deadline to complete jurisdictional discovery. By no later than July 10, 2026, (1) if the parties agree on a joint discovery plan, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding the joint discovery plan or (2) if the parties do not agree on a joint discovery plan, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel discovery. After completion of jurisdictional discovery, the Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to remand. The Court adopts the Plaintiff's position that the proposed class is limited to Overlake's patients and prospective patients. Based on this limited proposed class definition, the Court does not find jurisdictional discovery would be futile. Accordingly, the Court grants leave for the Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant for allegedly disclosing the Plaintiff's and putative class members' Private Information to third parties, including Meta and Google, through its use of website tracking tools. Overlake is a Washington-based hospital system. The Complaint defines the proposed class as: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information was disclosed to a third party without authorization or consent as a result of using Defendant's Website." Overlake is a nonprofit healthcare organization headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dY8jdK at no extra charge.[CC] PARTS AUTHORITY: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joline Ornelas v. Parts Authority Metro LLC et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-03450-ODW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting in part and denying in part the stipulation to extend the dates. Specifically, the Court extends the Plaintiff's deadline to hear a motion for class certification to Nov. 9, 2026. The briefing schedule for the motion for class certification shall be governed by the Local Rules. All other dates and deadlines remain the same. The Court finds that the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause to push out every date and deadline in this case by three months in some instances and nearly five months in other instances, nor do the parties demonstrate good cause to institute a special briefing schedule for the motion for class certification. Parts Authority is an active carrier in California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynN7Jw at no extra charge.[CC] PETROLEX II: Class Certification Bids in Kelly Due August 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v Petrolex II, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order entered granting joint motion for extension of time. Completion of Defendants' Expert's Deposition completed by July 10, 2026. Class Certification Motions due by Aug. 7, 2026. Opposition to Class Certification Motions due by Oct. 9, 2026. Reply in Support of Class Certification Motions due by Nov. 13, 2026. The Court is not inclined to grant any further requests for extension of time. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. Petrolex II operates primarily in the specialized repair services industry.[CC] PHILLIP GAYLEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ainsworth Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANH AINSWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIP GAYLEN P.C. d/b/a BAILEY & GAYLEN, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00702-O (N.D. Tex., June 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect Private Information, says the suit. Phillip Gaylen P.C. d/b/a Bailey & Gaylen is a Texas professional corporation operating as a law firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Anushe Zebal, Esq. Jessica Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com anz@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com POLYPEPTIDE LABORATORIES: Removes Castillo Suit to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of JUSTIN CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLYPEPTIDE LABORATORIES INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV13498) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06415. PolyPeptide Laboratories Inc engages in the line of business includes providing professional analytic or diagnostic services for the medical profession. [BN] Defendant PolyPeptide Laboratories Inc. is represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Kenny T. Tran, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Telephone: (213) 689-7448 Facsimile: (213) 689-7401 Email: jariley@duanemorris.com bluu@duanemorris.com ktran@duanemorris.com PORT OF MORROW: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Nov. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PEARSON, et al., v. PORT OF MORROW, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00362-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order granting the parties' stipulated request to amend case management schedule. The Court strikes the pretrial conferences previously set for April 19 and April 26, 2027, and the jury trial date previously set for May 3, 2027. The Court sets oral argument on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification and any related Daubert motions for Nov. 6, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.; pretrial conferences for both June 7 and June 14, 2027, at 10:00 a.m.; and a threeweek jury trial to begin on June 21, 2027, at 9:00 a.m., all in Courtroom 15B of the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland, Oregon. The Court issues the following Second Amended Case Management Order: 1. Filing of Third Amended Complaint June 12, 2026. 2. The Plaintiffs move for class certification (with expert reports) June 30, 2026 3. The Defendants file opposition to class certification (with expert reports) and file Daubert motions, if any Aug. 27, 2026. 4. Oral argument on class certification and Daubert motions Nov. 6, 2026, 10 a.m. 5. Deadline for filing dispositive motions and Daubert motions, if any, directed at merits experts Feb. 5, 2027 Port of Morrow is the port authority in Boardman, a city in Morrow County, Oregon. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t02O01 at no extra charge.[CC] POSHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSHI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04697 (S.D.N.Y., June 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.poshi.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including February 9, 2026 and February 15, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Poshi Sampler Snack Variety Pack from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Poshi LLC operates the website that offers veggie snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RADIAL INC: Schropp Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Anne Liconti Schropp, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Radial, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04097 (E.D. Pa., June 15, 2026) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are current and former employees of the Defendant who were not paid for all hours they worked for the Defendant in a workweek. This includes any hours worked over 40 in a workweek, which should be paid at one and a half times, the suit says. Accordingly, the Defendant systematically failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all hours worked including pre-shift time spent booting up computers and logging into multiple software programs before the permitted clock-in time. Radial is a multinational e-commerce and third-party logistics (3PL) company headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E.DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX,LLP Robert E. DeRose 4200 Regent Street, Suite210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744.2300 E-mail:bderose@barkanmeizlish.com RCI INTERNET: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Garcia Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCI INTERNET SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04629 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on the Plaintiff and the Class due to inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. The Defendant failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, the suit alleges. RCI Internet Services Inc. specializes in structured cabling (Cat6/7, fiber), branch office network installations, firewall deployment, SD-WAN routing, and Wi-Fi site surveys. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com REGAL CINEMAS: Maurer Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., a Tennessee Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06541 (D.N.J., June 4, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, against the Defendant for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property/place of public accommodation is a movie theatre, known as Regal Hamilton Commons located in Mays Landing, New Jersey. Plaintiff Maurer has visited the property many times over the years; his last visit occurring on or about March 6, 2026. Mr. Maurer and his family have visited Regal as bone fide patrons with the intent to avail themselves of the goods and services offered to the public within; however, he has found it to be rife with violations of the ADA -- both in architecture and in policy. These architectural features include parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles that are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs, says the complaint. Regal Cinemas, Inc. owns and operates the property/place.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com RF INDUSTRIES: Hearing on Prelim OK of Settlement for August 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- R F Industries Ltd. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2026, that the San Diego County Superior Court has set the hearing for the preliminary approval of the labor class suit settlement on August 7, 2026. On July 24, 2024, by a former employee in San Diego County Superior Court against the Company and its subsidiary, C Enterprises, Inc. The case is pending before the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack. The complaint asserts alleged violations of California state law concerning straight time wages and overtime wages. The action further alleges violations relating to meal periods, rest periods, and business expense reimbursement. It also includes claims concerning the timely payment of wages at termination and the provision of accurate itemized wage statements. In addition, the plaintiff asserts a claim under California's unfair competition law. This lawsuit is brought as a putative class action on behalf of non-exempt employees who worked for the Company in California at any time from July 24, 2020, through the present. The action seeks damages and other relief on behalf of this alleged class of non-exempt employees. In addition, on July 23, 2024, the plaintiff provided notice of the alleged violations of law described above to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). On or about Oct. 18, 2024, the plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, which amended her class complaint to include a cause of action under PAGA. Through this claim, the plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of the State of California and other similarly situated employees for the period of Aug. 14, 2023, through the present. On Oct. 30, 2025, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay, on an all-in and non-reversionary basis, a total settlement amount of $855,000, which amount has been accrued as of Oct. 31, 2025. As of June 15, 2026, no class certification deadline or trial date has been set. The parties attended private mediation on Aug. 7, 2025, and thereafter reached a settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is scheduled to be heard on Aug. 7, 2026. R F Industries Ltd. is a designer and manufacturer of interconnect products, including RF connectors, cables, and related solutions, serving telecommunications, data communications, and industrial markets in the United States and internationally. RICOH USA: MTP Seeks to File Partial Summary Judgment Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 27, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for partial summary judgment in the Plaintiff's and the classes' favor on the breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff brings on behalf of himself and the certified classes a straightforward breach of contract claim against the Defendant. On June 4, 2026, this Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certified a class and subclass defined as follows: Class: "All customers of Ricoh in the United States where (1) their contract contains an Annual Price Increase limit using the API Form Provision, (2) Ricoh increased prices in any year by a percentage that exceeded the numerical percentage set forth in the text of that customer's API Form Provision, and (3) the contract contains a Pennsylvania choice-of-law clause." California Subclass: "All members of the Class who are located in California according to Ricoh's records." Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psOJn7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. Tristan Malhotra, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law TMalhotra@panish.law ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Settlement Prelim. Approval Bid Due Sept. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-07442 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order vacating the briefing schedule and hearing regarding the motion for class certification: By September 8, 2026, either: (1) Plaintiff shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; or (2) the parties shall file a status update. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Robinhood is a financial services company operating a commission-free electronic trading platform.[CC] RUAN TRANSPORT: Liquor Therapy Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruan Transport Corporation. The case is styled as Liquor Therapy LLC, By-Pass Package Store, LLC, JW Jennings Liquor LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ruan Transport Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00384-CWR-LGI (Del Chancery Ct., May 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Ruan -- https://www.ruan.com/ -- is a privately-owned transportation company that provides dedicated contract transportation, managed transportation, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Porter, Esq. PORTER & MALOUF, PA P. O. Box 12768 825 Ridgewood Rd. (Ridgeland-39157) Jackson, MS 39236 Phone: (601) 957-1173 Fax: (601) 957-7366 Email: tim@portermalouf.com RYZE INC: Beltran Sues Over Illegal False Discount Scheme --------------------------------------------------------- Steven Beltran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ryze, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-06091 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for: engaging in an illegal false discount scheme; and violating California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"). The Defendant sells a wide range of health and wellness products through its website, www.ryzesuperfoods.com (the "Website"). Whenever a consumer purchases Defendant's products--whether it be on the Website or through a social-media advertisement--Defendant surreptitiously enrolls the consumer in an automatically renewing "subscription" that, unbeknownst to the consumer at the time, results in recurring charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account ("Payment Method") every month, in perpetuity until canceled (the "RYZE Subscriptions") The Defendant has also engaged in a widespread deceptive pricing scheme to induce consumers to purchase its "promotional" RYZE Subscriptions by falsely advertising a massive discount from a purported regular price that Defendant never charges. Defendant represents that these offers are limited-time sales and uses countdown timers, even though the same sale is always available. This deceptive discount pricing scheme misleads reasonable consumers into believing they are receiving an extraordinary limited-time deal, and it violates California's prohibitions on false advertising and misleading pricing. Prior to enrolling Plaintiff and the Class members into RYZE Subscriptions--and thereafter assessing each of their Payment Methods a recurring charge on a monthly basis--the Defendant failed to provide the disclosures and authorizations required by ARL to any of these consumers., says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased "Mushroom Coffee (30 Servings)" from the Defendant's Website. The Defendant is an online-based retailer of mushroom-based health and wellness products, including mushroom coffee, which it sells on its Website to consumers nationwide, including throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com SAFECO INS: Faces McCombs Suit Over Systematic Breaches of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR WAYNE CHAVEZ-MCCOMBS, an individual, and ALICIA MCCOMBS, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., a Massachusetts corporation and LIBERTY MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY, a Massachusetts-based holding company, and all affiliated Liberty Mutual entities, Case No. 3:26-cv-30092 (D. Mass., June 15, 2026) challenges Liberty Mutual's systematic breaches of contract and of industry standards in connection with its calculation of a key component of a homeowner's insurance claim, namely overhead and profit (O&P). O&P represents amounts that account for the services of a general contractor. Allegedly, Liberty Mutual has surreptitiously begun to calculate O&P before sales taxes, resulting in the systematic underpayment of homeowner's insurance claims. It has done so under homeowner's insurance policies that uniformly require Liberty Mutual to pay the homeowner the amount it would cost the homeowner to repair or replace the damaged property, that Liberty Mutual itself drafted, and that nowhere permit Liberty Mutual to omit O&P from sales taxes, the suit says. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to recover damages caused by Liberty Mutual's breaches and to enjoin those breaches. Liberty Mutual is a mutual insurance company organized under the laws of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason R. Herrick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JASON R. HERRICK, P.C. 10 School Street Westfield, MA 01085 Telephone: (413) 568-5200 E-mail: jasonherrick@comcast.net - and - J. Lindsey Chong, Esq. Bryant Paris, Esq. FLC LAW 1430 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 317 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 505-5257 Facsimile: (305) 874-0750 E-mail: bp@flc-legal.com jlc@flc-legal.com - and - Times Wang, Esq. Charee Woodard, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC 1300 I Street NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 505-6227 Facsimile: (202) 505-6007 E-mail: cwoodard@farrawang.com twang@farrawang.com - and - Katie Goodrich, Esq. Rodney J. Monheit, Esq. MOGO, LLC 600 17th St, Ste 2800 S Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 954-2199 Facsimile: (720) 954-2207 E-mail: rodney@mogollc.com katie@mogollc.com SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Faces Blomenkamp Suit Over Recycling Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BLOMENKAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, LLC, d/b/a Safelite AutoGlass, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-00853 (S.D. Ill., June 15, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and three proposed classes of consumers who paid Safelite's recycling fee: -- a Nationwide Class of all U.S. consumers who paid the fee; -- an Illinois Class of Illinois consumers who paid the fee; and -- a Multistate Consumer Class of consumers who paid the fee in jurisdictions with materially similar consumer protection laws in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Accordingly, Safelite employs a practice known as "drip pricing." When a consumer visits Safelite's website to schedule a glass replacement, Safelite first extracts detailed information -- vehicle year, make, model, VIN, and personal contact information—before presenting a price quote. That quote, displayed prominently in large green text, does not include the $39.99 recycling fee. Only at the very end of the scheduling process -- after the consumer has spent considerable time and effort and selected an appointment date and location -- does Safelite reveal the true price, which can be over 10% higher than the initial quote. Courts and regulators recognize that drip pricing is a deceptive practice that exploits consumers' sunk-cost psychology to compel acceptance of a higher, previously concealed price. The Plaintiff seeks for himself and the Classes compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of Safelite's unjust profits, and other appropriate relief. The case is well-suited for class treatment because Safelite's recycling fee scheme is uniform, company-wide, and well-documented. Safelite should be held accountable for the millions of dollars it has extracted from consumers through its deceptive and unfair practices, alleges the suit. Safelite Group, Inc. is an American provider of automotive glass repair and replacement services, wholesale automotive glass sales, and insurance claims management, based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Limoli, Esq. John J. Driscoll, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 434 Fayetteville Street, Ste. 560 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 582-6516 Facsimile: (314) 932-3233 E-mail: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com john@jjlegal.com SAFEWAY INC: Kelley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jorbie Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAFEWAY INC., Case No. 26-2-14629-2 SEA 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. 2:26-cv-01980. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges three causes of action under Washington Law: failure to compensate for missed, untimely, and/or interrupted meal and rest periods in violation of WAC 296-126-092, brought as an implied cause of action pursuant to RCW 49.12; failure to pay overtime wages stemming from missed and/or interrupted and unpaid meal and rest periods pursuant to WMWA; and double damages for willful and intentional withholding of wages pursuant to RCW.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone: 310.277.0614 Fax: 310.277.0635 Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.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. Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq. Tanner J. Hendershot, 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 bmhernandez@reedsmith.com thendershot@reedsmith.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Certify Classes Due May 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN DELAHOY, MARY DUNAHOE, FRANK TASTINGER, TERRY TIGHE, JOANNE MICHANOWICZ, ERIC BOSCH, and CHRIS KUGLER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04132-CCC-CF (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Fais entered a fourth amended pretrial scheduling order as follows: 1. Any motion to add new parties, whether by amended or third- party complaint, must be electronically filed no later than Aug. 1, 2026. 2. Any motion to amend pleadings must be electronically filed no later than Aug. 1, 2026. 3. All affirmative expert reports relating to class certification shall be delivered by Feb. 15, 2027. All responsive expert reports shall be delivered by March 15, 2027. Depositions of all experts to be completed by April 15, 2027. 4. Any motion to certify a class(es), must be electronically filed no later than May 15, 2027. Any opposition must be electronically filed no later than June 15, 2027. Any reply must be electronically filed no later than July 15, 2027. Samsung manufactures electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nXXbMb at no extra charge.[CC] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Farber Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK FARBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03517-GPC-MMP (S.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Farber was employed by the Defendant as a bomb squad and an arson unit staff. San Diego County, officially the County of San Diego, is located in the southwest corner of the U.S. state of California, north to its border with Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Conger, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. CONGER 16236 San Dieguito Road, Suite 4-14 P.O. Box 9374 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Telephone: (858) 759-0200 E-mail: mike@lawconger.com SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 22, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEE STARKWEATHER, v. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01678-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered a case-management and pretrial order: Scheduled Event Date Deadline to file Motion for Certification of Class Motion: Feb. 22, 2027 Response: March 19, 2027 Reply: April 9, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification: May 5, 2027, at 9:00 am Close of fact discovery: July 02, 2027 Close of expert discovery: Sept. 17, 2027 Hearing on dispositive and Daubert motions and status conference re: trial readiness: Nov. 17, 2027, at 11:00 a.m. Deadline to file joint pretrial statement: Jan. 12, 2028 The Defendant retails jewelry for men and women. A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oQuUjt at no extra charge.[CC] SMITH & WESSON: Discovery in CIPA Securities Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2026, that discovery is underway with regards to a putative class action lawsuit filed in April 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Privacy Act, resulting in invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract and fair dealing, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that after they clicked on the reject all cookies button on the Company's website, the website enabled third parties to place cookies and similar tracking technologies on their browsers and devices and/or to transmit their user data to third parties for their financial gain and other purposes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including statutory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, disgorgement of revenues and profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees and costs. In May 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and in November 2025, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order selecting an alternative dispute resolution process, notifying the court of their selection of a private mediator and their proposed June 30, 2026 deadline to mediate the case. On Feb. 17, 2026, the court granted in part the company's motion to dismiss, dismissing with leave to amend plaintiffs' CIPA, common law fraud for one named plaintiff, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and trespass to chattels claims. On the same date, the court denied in part the company's motion to dismiss, permitting plaintiffs' intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, common law fraud for certain named plaintiffs, and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On March 17, 2026, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, removing the breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and trespass to chattels claims and attempting to cure the pleading deficiencies the court identified with the CIPA claims. In late March 2026, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which has been fully briefed. The parties were unable to resolve the matter at the court-ordered mediation on May 15, 2026. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. is a leading U.S. manufacturer of firearms and related products for the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets. The company designs, produces, and markets handguns, long guns, and shooting accessories under the Smith & Wesson and other brand names. SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Unlawful Loans ---------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE ESPINOZA; AUSTIN BUSHONG; JULIAN GRIFFIN; MD JAHIRUL ISLAM; and RUBIN STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT VANZILE, JR.; ROGER MCGESHICK, JR.; SONYA SMITH; MAIA KEGLEY; LEELYN VANZILE; CALEB MCGESHICK; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01050 (E.D. Wis., June 12, 2026) is an action arising from the making and collection of unlawful loans from online lending entities purportedly owned and operated by the Sokaogon Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (the "Tribe"), a federally recognized Native American tribe. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the loans impose triple-digit interest rates, exponentially higher than the interest rate cap permitted by laws in nearly every state. Seeking to ostensibly avoid state usury laws, the Defendants established what is commonly referred to as a tribal lending business model—"the most recent incarnation of payday lending [companies'] regulation-avoidance." Sokaogon Chippewa Community of the Mole Lake Band of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized Native American tribe located in southwestern Forest County, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas Scott-Railton, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Facsimile: (202) 888-7792 Email: thomas@guptawessler.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com SOUTHEAST CONNECTIONS: Stallworth Seeks FLSA Collective Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Stallworth, Jahleel Wilson, Willie Harris, and Alberto Gonzalez Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Southeast Connections, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04106-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for final certification of the FLSA collective. The Defendant provides energy infrastructure construction and maintenance services for the natural gas industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nhcBMh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: H. Clara Coleman, Esq. Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: srey@nka.com ccoleman@nka.com - and - Eleanor M. Attwood, Esq. Marissa R. Torgerson, Esq. LEGARE, ATTWOOD & RAGAN, LLC 125 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 515 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (470) 823-4000 Facsimile: (470) 201-1212 E-mail: emattwood@law-llc.com mrtorgerson@law-llc.com SPECIFIC PROTECTION: Fact Discovery in Nelson Due Oct. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAWRENCE NELSON, v. SPECIFIC PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00958-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Mehta entered an order as follows: -- The deadline to add parties or amend pleadings shall be June 29, 2026; -- The parties shall submit a Joint Status Report regarding the status of discovery on or before Sept. 9, 2026; -- Fact discovery as to class certification shall conclude on Oct. 30, 2026; -- The parties shall serve any proponent expert disclosures, consistent with Rule 26(a)(2), on or before Dec. 1, 2026; -- Expert discovery shall conclude on Feb. 19, 2027; -- A Post-Class Certification Discovery Status Conference is set for Feb. 24, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. via videoconference. The Defendant is a private security company offering elite executive protection, crowd control, and licensed armed security guards. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FbrVR2 at no extra charge.[CC] STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blakeney Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KELISHA BLAKENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01597 (E.D. Va., June 8, 2026) is an action against the Defendant Strategic Education, Inc. for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, and financial information stored within Defendant's information network. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Strategic Education, Inc. provides educational services. The College offers working adults undergraduate and graduate degree programs in business and public administration, accounting, and information technology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Jonathan P. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 Email: lee@floydpc.com jonathan@floydpc.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: McCullough Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURTIS MCCULLOUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01552-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va., June 4, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former students including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On May 29, 2026, the Defendant began notifying state government officials about the data breach and sending breach notices to the victims affected. Allegedly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. The Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Strategic Education, Inc. is a private education company that owns and operates several schools and education platforms including Strayer University and Capella University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ramon Rodriguez, III, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 11 South 12th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (509) 822-2463 E-mail: rrodriguez@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300 #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com SUPPORT PETS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Product Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Support Pets, LLC has falsely and deceptively marketed its emotional support animal (ESA) and psychiatric service dog (PSD) products as "official" and legally valid. The 24-page complaint contends that although Support Pets sells bundles of products -- vests, ID cards, certificates, leashes, and "official" documentation -- that it claims are all a pet owner needs to take their pet almost anywhere, none of the documentation or paraphernalia the company sells is legally required for service dogs to enter public places. The case additionally contends that while the law recognizes that an ESA letter can allow for a pet to live in housing with a no-pets policy, Support Pets "does not follow the protocol required for the ESA Letter it sells to be legally valid." Further, the complaint says that although Support Pets, in advertisements, invites consumers to "qualify" or "register" their pets, no government registry exists for service dogs or emotional support animals, and no federal law requires a pet owner to buy any form of registration, ID card, vest, certificate or other form of privately issued documentation in order to obtain rights pertaining to an ESA or service dog. "Thus, Defendant is misleading consumers into believing that its 'Official ESA and PSD products are official, necessary and legally meaningful, when in fact those products are not required by law and do not independently create or establish any legal rights," the class action lawsuit summarizes, calling Support Pets' products "privately branded documentation and accessories with no legal significance." Per the suit, all a dog owner must do to buy Support Pets' products is provide a name, address, payment information, and the dog's vest size. The filing states that the defendant "does not ask the only information legally required to establish that a dog is a 'service dog:' whether it has been trained to perform specific tasks to assist its owner." The suit claims that consumers are encouraged to register their pets online through a qualification process rife with "softball questions" -- "Do you ever feel sad when you're away from your dog?" and "Does your dog help melt your stress away?" among others -- that provide no medical insight. The lawsuit further alleges that during this questionnaire process, Support Pets pressures consumers into making purchases by warning that the United States government is seeking to change ESA laws to make it "harder and more costly" to obtain approval. Per the complaint, two federal laws that govern the use of service and support animals are the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The ADA enforces the rights of individuals with disabilities to have service dogs in public places, whereas the FHA mandates that tenants with disabilities have reasonable housing accommodations for their required animals, the suit describes. Though these laws cover different circumstances of service and support animal use, the complaint explains that neither the ADA nor the FHA requires any registration, certification, vest, or ID card purchased online. Further, the "only type of documentation that a landlord cannot reject" from a person requesting pet-related accommodation under the FHA is a letter that from a healthcare professional confirming that the tenant has a disability-related need for the animal, the case relays. In reference to the purported ESA law changes, the complaint explains that this alludes to "incremental changes" made by federal agencies to combat fraudulent businesses selling unlicensed documentation, allegedly including Support Pets. In particular, the case cites a HUD notice that appears to call into question the legality of businesses like Support Pets, warning that "commercially available documentation from the internet" is insufficient to establish that a person has a disability-related need for a service or support animal. The Support Pets class action lawsuit looks to represent all people who purchased ESA and PSD products from the company within the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period and through class certification and trial. [GN] SUSAN HOWE: Montgomery Loses Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY ALAN MONTGOMERY, v. SUSAN HOWE, MARY JO LABARGE, JULIA GREGG, and RICHARD SCHUMPERT, Case No. 3:26-cv-00076-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff Montgomery's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 2. The Plaintiff Montgomery is assessed the civil filing fee of $350.00; 3. The custodian of the Plaintiff Montgomery's inmate trust accounts is directed to submit the filing fee to the Clerk; 4. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this memorandum and order and the accompanying judgment order to the custodian of inmate accounts at the institution where the Plaintiff is now confined and the Court's financial deputy; 5. The Plaintiff Montgomery's motion to certify class and to appoint counsel and motion for injunctive relief are denied; 6. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; and 7. The Court certifies that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. The Plaintiff's complaint does not plausibly allege that the Plaintiff and the comparative prisoner are similarly situated in a manner that would allow the Court to plausibly infer a violation of the Plaintiff's right to equal protection based on the different treatment of them with regard to use of MCCX library equipment. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9G9LJ5 at no extra charge.[CC] SV SUPER: Ruben Wins Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Randall Ruben, v. SV Super Sale Bin Store Incorporated, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00228-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Zipps entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) with respect to: "All store workers (or similar job titled); who work[ed] for the Defendant SV Super Sale Bin Store, GV Super Sales Bin Store, Super Sale Bin Store, Ahmad Alzfifah and/or Sameer Qasem; within the past three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek, or were paid below Arizona minimum wage for any workweek; as a past or present worker are known as (the "Collective Members")." The Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff's counsel within three (3) days of this Order the names, all known addresses, all known email addresses (work and personal), employee identification number, last four digits of social security numbers, dates of employment, and phone numbers for all Collective Members, ("Class List"), the Court says. The Plaintiff's counsel shall mail a copy of the "Notice of Collective Action" and "Consent Form," via regular U.S. Mail and via electronic mail to all persons contained on the list within seven (7) days of receiving the list from Defendants, the Court adds. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arizona Minimum Wage Statute ("AMWS"). SV Super is an Arizona-based discount liquidation outlet. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lKe13X at no extra charge.[CC] SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS FISCHER, BRIAN BLAIR and MARGARET BLAZIC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive; Case No. 3:25-cv-02232-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, the Defendant requests leave to file the proposed sur-reply papers included as exhibits to this motion for administrative relief. There are three bases for the Defendant's request for leave to file a sur-reply. First, the Plaintiffs took the depositions of eight putative class members after the Defendant filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and used excerpts of the deposition testimony in their reply brief. Second, the Plaintiffs' reply brief includes for the first time a section titled "Manageability of Class Action Trial," which was required to be included in the Plaintiffs' opening brief pursuant to Paragraph 55 of Judge Chhabria's Civil Standing Order. Third, the Plaintiffs argue at ECF page 18 of their reply brief: "As to Plaintiff Fischer, Swift also fails to provide any factual support to its claim that Plaintiff Fischer did not drive any high value loads during the relevant time period." The Court should therefore grant this motion for administrative relief, accept for filing the proposed sur-reply papers included with this motion, and consider those papers in deciding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Swift offers logistics, convention facilities, heavy hauling, trans loading, and trucking services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QcQVh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. Alexis Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TAKARA SAKE: Class Action Settlement in Tunick Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hixson entered an order granting final approval of the class action settlement. The Court also grants Tunick's motion for attorney's fees and costs and an incentive award in the amount of $645,000, which represents $358,430.69 in attorneys' fees, $286,569.31 in costs, and a $5,000 incentive award to Plaintiff Colby Tunick. The parties shall file a proposed judgment that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3) by June 18, 2026. In accordance with the Northern District's procedural guidance for class action settlements, within 21 days after payment of the fees and costs awarded herein, class counsel shall file a post-distribution accounting that provides the relevant information listed at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules-forms-fees/northern-district-guidelines/procedural-guidance-classaction-settlements. Counsel should provide this information using the Court's post-distribution accounting form and file it as ECF event "Post-Distribution Accounting" under Civil Events > Other Filings > Other Documents. The fairness factors weigh in favor of granting Tunick's motion for final approval of the class action settlement. Tunick alleges the products' labels deceptively suggest they are made in Japan based on: (1) large, bold lettering in Japanese throughout the products' front labels; (2) a gold emblem above the Japanese lettering that states "Licensed by TaKaRa Japan, Since 1851"; and (3) the brand name "Sho Chiku Bai," a Japanese phrase. The Settlement defines the Class as: "All persons who, during the Class Period, purchased one or more of the Products in California for purposes other than resale at a retail location or online, with the following exceptions: (i) the Defendant, its assigns, successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which the Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer." Takara manufactures, labels, advertises, distributes and sells sakes. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dDfUqk at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Baby Wipes Contaminated With B. Cepacia, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ahmed Chowdhury, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-03580 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Target Corporation with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Up&Up(TM) branded Fragrance Free and Fresh Cucumber Scented baby wipes products throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with Burkholderia cepacia complex (B. cepacia) and Burkholderia gladioli (B. gladioli). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated certainly expect that the baby wipes products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe disease and even be life threatening, the suit says. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells the Up & Up Fragrance Free and Fresh Cucumber Scented baby wipes products. The Products are marketed as baby wipes, and that a consumer can use them as such.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks to Permanently Seal Part of Exhibit 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF VERMONT and THE VERMONT HEALTH PLAN, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA SALES & MARKETING, INC., and TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00159-gwc (D. Vt.), non-party Sandoz Inc. moves to permanently seal a narrow portion of Exhibit 3 (expert report of Dr. Lamb) to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, Sandoz seeks to permanently seal the portion of paragraph 61 of Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' Motion between the words "A" and "placement," which cites and/or discusses the document bearing Bates Number SANDOZ-COPAXONE-0027032, a presentation containing Sandoz’s marketing strategy for Glatopa (the "Presentation"). The Presentation was designated by Sandoz as Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the Discovery Confidentiality Orders. Accordingly, Sandoz requests that the instant motion be granted in its entirety. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(a)(7), counsel for Sandoz has conferred with counsel for Defendants and for Plaintiffs in a good faith attempt to reach agreement on the requested sealing. Counsel for Defendants has confirmed that Defendants take no position on the instant motion. Counsel for Plaintiffs likewise confirmed that Plaintiffs take no position on the instant motion. The portion of Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' Motion that Sandoz moves to permanently seal is an excerpt that cites and/or discusses the Presentation -- which consists of 54 slides relating to non-party Sandoz's non-public business plans for its glatiramer acetate product. More specifically, the excerpt describes and reveals specific business strategies considered and employed by Sandoz to increase sales and usage of its glatiramer acetate product. The information provides insight into how Sandoz markets and sells its products, which is information that a competitor could exploit. This information is not publicly available and, if disclosed, would unfairly grant competitors access to the confidential business strategies that Sandoz uses in marketing and selling its glatiramer acetate product -- which it continues to market and sell today – thereby undermining Sandoz's competitive stance in the market. Thus, the identified excerpt of the Presentation in Exhibit 3 should remain under seal. Teva is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Sandoz Inc. motion dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pc1zmy at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Non-Party Sandoz, In Justin B. Barnard, Esq. DINSE P.C. 209 Battery Street, P.O. Box 988 Burlington, VT 05402 Telephone: (802) 864-5751 E-mail: jbarnard@dinse.com TUFT & NEEDLE: Agrees to Settle False Ads' Class Action for $2.99M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Tuft and Needle agreed to pay $2.99 million as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims it deceptively advertised discounts on its website. The Tuft and Needle settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more mattresses advertised at a discount on tuftandneedle.com while in California between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, Tuft and Needle allegedly advertised false discounts on its website to trick consumers into thinking they were getting a good deal. The plaintiff in the case says Tuft and Needle discounts practices violated California consumer protection laws. Tuft and Needle is an online mattress retailer that sells mattresses, pillows, sheets and other sleep accessories. Tuft and Needle has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.99 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Tuft and Needle settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or a store credit. Both forms of payment will provide class members with 45% of the discount they received on their mattress purchases. According to the settlement website, the average cash benefit or website credit will be around $75 per mattress purchase. Website credits will be valid for three years after the settlement is finally approved and can be used at any time towards any purchase with no blackout dates or restrictions. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 14, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Tuft and Needle discounts class action settlement is scheduled for July 10, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 14, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more mattresses advertised at a discount on tuftandneedle.com while in California between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2024. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/14/2026 Case Name Chebul v. Tuft & Needle LLC, Case No. 25CU059198N, in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego Final Hearing 07/10/2026 Settlement Website TNPriceSettlement.com Claims Administrator Tuft & Needle Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 info@tnpricesettlement.com (855) 699-4292 Class Counsel Simon Franzini Grace Bennett DOVEL & LUNER LLP Defense Counsel Matthew Splitek QUARLES & BRADY LLP [GN] U.S. NEWS: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Mendoza Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE MENDOZA and MATTHEW HORAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, L.P. Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06080 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals to address Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of their private data, including personally identifiable information, to unauthorized third parties. U.S. News operates the website, https://usnews.com a digital platform that publishes news, rankings, and informational content across a wide range of subject areas, including health, education, finance, travel, and consumer products. The Website allows users to explore these topics through structured navigation and interactive tools, allowing them to browse by condition, search for symptoms, compare treatment options, and access rankings of hospitals, specialists, and healthcare services. Embedded on the website is tracking technology from third parties, including Google and ScorecardResearch, designed to intercept users' website communications, including their health-related browsing activity, and disclose those interceptions to the Tracking Entities without users' knowledge or consent, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendant's procurement of tracking entities to track and use website users' sensitive information for marketing purposes, which constitutes unlawful wiretapping and an invasion of Plaintiffs' privacy, asserts the complaint. U.S. News & World Report, L.P. is in the business of publishing and distributing news, rankings, and informational content to consumers through its online platform, including content relating to healthcare providers, medical conditions, and health-related services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jingber@zlk.com - and - Eleanor Davis, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: edavis@zlk.com ULTA SALON: Class Cert Bid Filing in Divens Due June 4, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as K'MISHA A. DIVENS, et. al., v. ULTA SALON COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01266-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties Sept. 10, 2026 and amended pleadings: Reports of expert witnesses on class Feb. 24, 2027 certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Rebuttal expert disclosures on class Mar. 24, 2027 certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Discovery related to class certification May 4, 2027 to be completed by: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Motion for June 4, 2027 Class Certification and for motions to exclude expert testimony for failure to satisfy Daubert: If this case settles, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall notify deputy clerk, Tim Farrell, at (206) 370- 8422 or via e-mail at: Tim_Farrell@wawd.uscourts.gov, as soon as possible. The Defendant operates as a beauty store. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oO4PiP at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AMERICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Chang Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON CHANG, et al., v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:24-cv-02377-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Howell entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Merritt Case. The Court further orders that: -- the Defendant's motion to dismiss Chang is granted in part as to Counts I, IV, and V, and denied in part as to Counts II and III of the Third Amended Complaint; -- the Counts I, IV, and V of the Third Amended Complaint in Chang are dismissed; -- the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I in Chang, is denied; -- the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is denied without prejudice; -- the Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibits from Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied as moot; -- the Defendant's Motion to Strike Exhibits from Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, ECF No. 53, is denied as moot, -- the defense counsel unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied The Defendant is a "licensed security agency" in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I4Ov6w at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Contraceptive Mandate Violates Religious Freedom --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD W. DEOTTE; YVETTE DEOTTE; JOHN KELLEY; ALISON KELLEY; BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his official capacity as SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; Scott Bessent, in his official capacity as SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; Keith E. Sonderling, in his official capacity as ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR; and US, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00712-O (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2026) alleges that the "Contraceptive Mandate" violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it substantially burdens the religious exercise of employers and individuals who object to contraception and abortifacients. The United States of America is a federal republic primarily located in North America, comprising 50 states, a federal capital district (Washington, D.C.), and several territories. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 686-3940 Facsimile: (512) 686-3941 Email: jonathan@mitchell.law - and - Charles W. Fillmore, Esq. THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 201 Main Street, Suite 801 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-2351 Facsimile: (817) 870-1859 Email: chad@fillmorefirm.com UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay All Wages, Ramirez Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAIAH MICAH RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, v. UNITED STATES OF ARITZIA INC. dba ARITZIA, a Delaware corporation; US OF ARITZIA INC, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV19010 (Cal. Super., June 15, 2026) is a Representative Action, pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code, on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated aggrieved non-exempt employees who currently work or formerly worked for Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all wages due to its California Employees during the course of employment and timely upon separation from employment, failing to provide Employees with meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse necessary business expenses, and failing to issue accurate, itemized wage statements to its California employees. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and seeks redress for these violations. Additionally, the Defendants paid Aggrieved Employees nondiscretionary commissions, incentive pay, and, or discretionary bonuses. However, Defendants failed to incorporate all remunerations, including nondiscretionary commissions, incentive pay, and/or nondiscretionary bonuses into the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the overtime wage rate, sick pay and vacation pay, and meal and rest period premiums. The Defendants also failed to reimburse necessary business expenses and provided Aggrieved Employees with inaccurate wage statements that prevented them from learning of these unlawful practices, says the suit. The Defendant sells women's clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Emma Geesaman, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: R.Shkodnik@d.law E.Geesaman@d.law UNITED STATES: McGee Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS MCGEE, MD PA ET AL., v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Case No. 4:26-cv-00243-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend briefing deadlines for the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion to certify the Class. To ensure the Plaintiffs have sufficient time to fully brief the Court on the pending motion to dismiss and motion to certify the Class, the Defendants have agreed to extend the Plaintiffs' deadlines to file their opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss and their reply in support of their Motion to Certify by one week each. The parties agree that the Plaintiffs' response in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be due on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. The parties further agree that the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion to certify the Class shall be due on Monday, June 29, 2026. These short extensions will not impact any other deadlines in this case. On May 15, 2026, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On May 26, 2026, the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. HHS is responsible for public health, health care, and human/social services for the United States of America. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOHgoK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William R. Morris III, Esq. Robert M. Hill ("Bobby"), Esq. Mark D. Polston, Esq. Nikesh Jindal, Esq. Ahsin Azim, Esq. Kyle Gotchy, Esq. Paul d'Ambrosio, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 2601 Olive Street, Suite 2300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 764-4414 Facsimile: (214) 764-4601 E-mail: wrmorris@kslaw.com rhill@kslaw.com mpolston@kslaw.com njindal@kslaw.com aazim@kslaw.com kgotchy@kslaw.com pdambrosio@kslaw.com - and - Preeya Noronha Pinto, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. Deborah Samenow, Esq. Allison Velez, Esq. DLA PIPER 500 Eighth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 799-4000 E-mail: Preeya.pinto@us.dlapiper.com Josh.gardner@us.dlapiper.com Deborah.samenow@us.dlapiper.com Allison.Velez@us.dlapiper.com UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Response by June 26 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RED EAGLE LAW, L.C. et al., v. JOSEPH B. EDLOW, in his official capacity as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case No. 3:26-cv-04850-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order granting the motion to continue briefing deadlines. The Defendant shall respond to the pending motion to certify class by June 26, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file any reply by July 3, 2026. The Defendant shall respond to the pending motion for preliminary injunction by June 29, 2026, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply by July 6, 2026. The case concerns 398 Plaintiffs who filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on May 25, 2026 (served on June 1, 2026), challenging two nationwide policies that were issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") concerning an adjudicative hold on applications for immigration benefits submitted by individuals from countries that had been identified as "high risk" by the United States, referred to as PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 (the "Policy Memoranda"). A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sPGlAi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Craig H. Missakian, Esq. Pamela T. Johann, Esq. Nag Young Chu, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7478 Facsunuke: (415) 436-7234 E-mail: Jeremy.Chu@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Perdomo Seeks to Certify Warrantless Arrest Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pedro VASQUEZ PERDOMO; Carlos Alexander OSORTO; and Isaac VILLEGAS MOLINA; Jorge HERNANDEZ VIRAMONTES; Jason Brian GAVIDIA; LOS ANGELES WORKER CENTER NETWORK; UNITED FARM WORKERS; COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS; IMMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER, v. Markwayne MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order -- certifying a Warrantless Arrest Class defined as: "All persons, since June 6, 2025, who have been arrested or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses a likelihood of escape." -- appointing the Warrantless Arrest Plaintiffs as class representatives, and -- appointing as class counsel the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, and Public Counsel (collectively, the "Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs' Class Counsel"). On June 8, 2026, the Warrantless Arrest Plaintiffs moved to enjoin the Defendants' policy and practice of conducting warrantless arrests without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses a likelihood of escape. The Defendants include David VENTURELLA, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Rodney S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol; Michael W. BANKS, in his official capacity as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; Kash PATEL, in his official capacity as Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Todd BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting U.S. Attorney General; Thomas GILES, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director for Los Angeles, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Dean T. SORENSON, Special Agent in Charge for Los Angeles, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Daniel PARRA, in his official capacity as Acting Chief Patrol Agent for El Centro Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol; Justin DE LA TORRE, in his official capacity as Acting Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol; Akil DAVIS, in his official capacity as Assistant Director in Charge, Los Angeles Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Bilal A. ESSAYLI, in his official capacity as First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nN4vmM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy Tolchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN 776 E. Green St., Suite 210 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 622-7450 Facsimile: (213) 622-7233 E-mail: stacy@tolchinimmigration.com - and - Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. Mayra Joachin, Esq. Eva Bitrán, Esq. Dae Keun Kwon, Esq. Stephanie Padilla, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, CA 90081-0007 Telephone: (213) 977-5232 Facsimile: (213) 201-7878 E-mail: mtajsar@aclusocal.org mjoachin@aclusocal.org ebitran@aclusocal.org akwon@aclusocal.org spadilla@aclusocal.org - and - Mark Rosenbaum, Esq. Rebecca Brown, Esq. Ritu Mahajan, Esq. Gina Amato, Esq. Amanda Mangaser Savage, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 E-mail: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org rbrown@publiccounsel.org rmahajan@publiccounsel.org gamato@publiccounsel.org asavage@publiccounsel.org - and - Anne Lai, Esq. UC IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW IMMIGRANT AND RACIAL JUSTICE SOLIDARITY CLINIC Irvine, CA 92616-5479 Telephone: (949) 824-9894 Facsimile: (949) 824-2747 E-mail: alai@law.uci.edu - and - Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq. David Fry, Esq. Adam B. Weiss, Esq. Sara H. Worth, Esq. Laura R. Perry, Esq. Henry D. Shreffler, Esq. Lauren E. Kuhn, Esq. Angela Uribe, Esq. Maggie Bushell, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 683-9100 E-mail: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com david.fry@mto.com adam.weiss@mto.com sara.worth@mto.com laura.perrystone@mto.com henry.shreffler@mto.com lauren.kuhn@mto.com angela.uribe@mto.com maggie.bushell@mto.com - and - Bree Bernwanger, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: bbernwanger@aclunc.org - and - Brisa Velazquez Oatis, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES San Diego, CA 92138-7131 Telephone: (619) 398-4199 E-mail: bvoatis@aclu-sdic.org - and - Edgar Aguilasocho, Esq. MARTÍNEZ AGUILASOCHO LAW, INC. 900 Truxtun Ave, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: (661) 859-1174 E-mail: eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com - and - Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq. Lauren Michel Wilfong, Esq. Jia Fu, Esq. NATIONAL DAY LABORER ORGANIZING NETWORK 1030 S. Arroyo Parkway, Suite 106 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 214-5689 E-mail: jessica@ndlon.org lwilfong@ndlon.org jennifer@ndlon.org - and - Matthew J. Craig, Esq. Mack E. Jenkins, Esq. HECKER FINK LLP 1150 South Olive Street, Suite 10-140 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Facsimile: (212) 564-0883 E-mail: mcraig@heckerfink.com mjenkins@heckerfink.com - and - Carl Bergquist, Esq. COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 2351 Hempstead Road Ottawa Hills, OH 43606 Telephone: (310) 279-6025 E-mail: cbergquist@chirla.org - and - Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq. Brynna Bolt, Esq. Alison Steffel, Esq. IMMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER 634 S. Spring St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 634-0999 E-mail: ahuerta@immdef.org bbolt@immdef.org asteffel@immdef.org UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Bid to Seal Docs in Baker Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of The University of Vermont Medical Center 403(b) Plan, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, the DC FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-45, Case No. 2:23-cv-00087-gwc (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to seal. The court has also reconsidered its order granting Plaintiffs motion to seal that order was improvidently granted. The documents covered by the sealing order should be public. The court withdraws that order and denies the Plaintiffs motion to seal. There are exceptions. The materials which both sides offer for sealing were previously marked as "confidential" in the course of discovery-outside of the court's view. At that time, the documents were not public records and are generally not subject to public scrutiny. That changes when they are filed with the court in support of a motion. The documents become subject to a common law and constitutional right of public access and review that is the foundation for public trust in the judiciary. The case concerns a claims of excessive fees levied against retirement savings of employees of The University of Vermont Medical Center ("UVMMC"). The University Of Vermont Medical Center is a five-campus academic medical facility. A copy of the Court's order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mTrifZ at no extra charge.[CC] VERRA MOBILITY: Otucu Sues for Damages Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ Ekim Otucu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Verra Mobility Corporation, David Roberts, and Craig Conti, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03973-SPL (D. Ariz., June 4, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Verra common stock between February 24, 2026, to May 26, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Verra's growth potential for the full-year 2026. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth of its Commercial Services segment, assurances of contract renewals with major rent-a-car customers, and growth in its rental car tolling business. However, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Verra's relationship with Avis Budget Group, and in particular obtaining a contract extension with Avis, the complaint contends. The truth emerged after the market closed on May 26, 2026, when Verra issued a press release announcing a termination notice from Avis regarding its contract and accordingly lowered its 2026 full-year financial outlook. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Verra's revelation. The price of Verra's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $13.08 per share on May 26, 2026, Verra's stock price fell to $3.85 per share on May 27, 2026, a decline of about 71%, says the suit. Verra Mobility Corporation provides smart mobility technology solutions in the United States, Australia, Europe, and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott H. Zwillinger, Esq. ZWILLINGER WULKAN 2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 675 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 609-3800 Facsimile: (602) 962-0207 E-mail: scott.zwillinger@zwfirm.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com VIA TRANSPORTATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Via Transportation, Inc. (NYSE: VIA) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Via Transportation's offering documents issued in connection with Via Transportation's September 15, 2025 initial public offering ("IPO"), have until August 10, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Via Transportation class action lawsuit. Captioned Garlesky v. Via Transportation, Inc., No. 26-cv-04870 (S.D.N.Y.), the Via Transportation class action lawsuit charges Via Transportation and certain of Via Transportation's top executives and directors and underwriters of the IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Via Transportation class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-via-transportation-inc-class-action-lawsuit-via.html You can also contact attorneys Ken Dolitsky or Michael Albert of Robbins Geller by calling 800/851-7783 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Via Transportation provides software and tech-enabled services for cities, transit agencies, transport operators, school districts, universities, and corporations to manage public transportation. According to the Via Transportation class action lawsuit, on or about September 15, 2025, Via Transportation conducted its IPO, issuing 10,714,285 shares to the public at the offering price of $46.00 per share. The Via Transportation class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's offering documents were materially false and/or misleading and/or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, including that: (i) at the time of the IPO, Via Transportation was adding customers faster than those customers were generating revenue, resulting in a decline in Platform Annual Run-Rate Revenue per customer; and (ii) existing regulatory issues would hinder Via Transportation's "land and expand" strategy in Germany. On November 13, 2025, Via Transportation published its 2025 third quarter financial results, allegedly disclosing that the Platform Annual Run-Rate Revenue per customer declined for the first time in eight quarters. On this news, the price of Via Transportation stock declined nearly 13%, according to the complaint. The Via Transportation class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 27, 2026, Via Transportation published its 2025 fourth quarter and full year financial results, revealing that Via Transportation was "facing some headwinds . . . in Germany" that rendered Via Transportation unable to sell its entire platform in Germany. On this news, the price of Via Transportation stock declined nearly 8%, according to the complaint. Then, on May 12, 2026, Via Transportation published its 2026 first quarter financial results, allegedly reporting that regulatory issues continued to limit Via Transportation's growth in Germany. On this news, the price of Via Transportation stock dropped an additional 17%, closing at nearly 70% below the IPO price, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Via Transportation common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Via Transportation class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Via Transportation investor class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Via Transportation shareholder class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Via Transportation class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors -- $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Visit this page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Contact: Ken Dolitsky, Esq. Michael Albert, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 851-7783 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bliven Over Wage & Hour Laws Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- BRENT BLIVEN, on behalf of himself and the putative Class Members v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WASHINGTON, INC; and WM RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02110 (W.D. Wash., June 16, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other individuals who work or have worked for the Defendants, as non-exempt, hourly employee "Drivers", to challenge Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully denying employees and similarly situated employees meal breaks and rest periods in violation of Washington wage and hour laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants denied Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees payment for all hours worked. The Defendants violated Washington law by knowingly and willfully permitting Plaintiff and Class Members to remain on-duty during meal and rest breaks. Defendants received value from the work performed by Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, who worked during meal and rest periods without the proper compensation. The Plaintiff files this action to recover on behalf of himself and Class Members for all unpaid wages, compensation, penalties, and other damages owed to them under Washington law individually, and as a class action under CR 23, in order to remedy the sweeping practices which have deprived Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of their lawfully-earned wages. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Driver, in Auburn, Washington from approximately 1997 to the present. The Defendant is a waste management company operating in North America. Founded in 1968, the company is headquartered in the Bank of America Tower in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Albert H. Kirby, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 521-5121 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: joanna@calljustice.com a.kirby@calljustice.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Michelle S. Lim, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com mlim@schneiderwallace.com WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Schmied Balks at Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SCHMIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03850 (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and at least 10,000 others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties in May 2026. According to the complaint, the data that West exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. On information and belief, the exposed data included personal identifying information, like names and Social Security Numbers. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to West, as a condition of employment, with the understanding that West would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. However, West disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. West's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was exposed and compromised in the data breach. West Pharmaceutical Services is a corporation that manufactures containment and delivery solutions for injectable medicines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 2005 Market Street, 6th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 446-9795 E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 424-5633 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com WEST VIRGINIA: Basham Suit Balks at Sex Offenders' $125 Annual Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHEN BASHAM, PHILIP KASO, RODERICK PATTON individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JAMES L MITCHELL, in his official capacity as Superintendent of West Virginia State Police, Case No. 2:26-cv-00408 (S.D.W.Va., June 16, 2026) is a civil rights challenge to the constitutionality of the provision of West Virginia Code Section 15-12-2(o) (2025), which requires individuals listed on West Virginia's Sex Offense Registry to pay an annual $125 "fee." The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated citizens of West Virginia, allege that the challenged statutory requirement violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, Art. 1, section 10, cl. 1, by retroactively imposing a punitive fine on individuals whose underlying offenses were committed before the enactment of W.V. Code Ann. section 15-12-2(o) on July 11, 2025. Accordingly, the failure to pay the purported fee will result in a property lien against the registrant, says the suit. The West Virginia State Police is a state law enforcement agency in the United States that provides police services to the residents of West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Savannah N. Morgan, Esq. NARSOL P.O. Box 25423 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 480-2551 E-mail: savannahm@narsol.org - and - Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. DIPIERO SIMMONS MCGINLEY & BASTRESS, PLLC 604 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone (304) 342-4605 E-mail: Lonnie.Simmons@dbdlawfirm.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Moore" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Marilyn Moore, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Clifton L. Corker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish commonality under Rule 23(a)(2). Plaintiffs purchased timeshare units at Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort, a 1,004-unit resort in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, between 2012 and 2018. Plaintiffs alleged that Westgate used high-pressure sales tactics and trained its sales agents to follow a roughly 150-page sales manual "to a T," including scripted segments such as the Pencil Pitch, Urgency Statement, and Trial Close. Plaintiffs claimed that sales agents told prospective purchasers they could use their timeshare whenever they want, while Westgate allegedly failed to disclose that the floating-use plan left purchasers competing for limited reservations on a first-come, first-served basis. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of more than 35,000 purchasers who bought an All Season floating-use timeshare at the resort between September 25, 2012 and January 31, 2018, as to their claims under the Tennessee Time-Share Act (Count Two), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Seven), and civil conspiracy (Count Nine). Westgate opposed certification, arguing that certification would create an absolute mess because there was no uniform evidence of what the proposed class was told. The Court found commonality drives the initial Rule 23 inquiry, requiring a question that yields a cohesive yes-or-no answer for the class and is central to at least one element of each claim. On the Tennessee Time-Share Act claim, the Court found. Plaintiffs' proposed question — whether Westgate made material misrepresentations or omissions about its floating-use product during a uniform sales presentation — satisfied centrality but failed cohesion. The sales manual was silent on availability and reservations, so what purchasers were told on that subject came from individualized conversations rather than a uniform script. Sales manager Glenn Brown testified that the foundation is the same but it could be different based on who you have in front of you, and another manager, James Rushford, told owners differing things depending on the season and the questions asked. The Court also found materiality varied by purchaser: Gerold Gallegos testified he bought his unit as an investment without reading the disclosures, while Marilyn Moore already knew of booking problems by the time of her 2013 upgrade. The Court further found that disclosure of the floating-use plan during the closing process meant second and third-time purchasers entered later sales presentations already aware of the floating-use structure, unlike first-time purchasers, creating additional dissimilarities the Court found fatal to commonality. On the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, the Court found Plaintiffs' proposed question — whether Westgate's uniform purchase contract adequately disclosed the true nature of the floating-use plan — lacked centrality because no provision of the purchase agreement imposed a duty on Westgate to disclose how the floating-use plan worked. The Court noted that Tennessee courts do not recognize an independent good-faith cause of action and that the implied covenant cannot be used to add disclosure duties the contract does not contain. On the civil conspiracy claim, the Court found Plaintiffs offered only a one-paragraph argument asserting the claim presented common questions by its nature, without tracing any question to the elements of the claim. Because the conspiracy claim rested on the same misrepresentations and omissions underlying the Time-Share Act and contract claims, it failed commonality for the same reasons. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses, including a Time-Share Act and Civil Conspiracy Subclass running from September 25, 2014, finding the same first-time versus repeat-purchaser dissimilarities applied. The Court declined to invite further briefing on a narrower class definition, reasoning that even a class confined to first-time purchasers would still fail because the variation in what purchasers were told about availability tracked the individual sales agent and the questions asked, not the line between first-time and repeat buyers. Because commonality is a threshold requirement under Rule 23(a), and no class that fails to satisfy all four of the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) may be certified, the Court did not address Westgate's standing argument or Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of proving commonality for each of their claims and denied the Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated June 9, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AnEWnv from PacerMonitor.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Corker entered an order denying the renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Having failed to identify a question that is central to the validity of their claim, the Plaintiffs do not satisfy their burden of proving commonality, and they are not entitled to class certification of this claim. The Plaintiffs allege that Westgate used "high-pressure sales tactics" to induce them into buying their timeshare units. As to only Counts Two, Seven, and Nine, the Plaintiffs move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and they propose the following class—consisting of more than 35,000 individuals whom they maintain are similarly situated—for certification: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from Westgate an All Season 'floating use plan' vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2018." Westgate is an American timeshare resort company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WuUcqY at no extra charge.[CC] WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Frost Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE FROST; and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02904 (D. Minn., June 10, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.westinghouse.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC manufactures consumer electronics and industrial equipment. The Company produces and sells electronics, electrical accessories, home and kitchen appliances, and provides industrial power solutions including nuclear energy systems. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mercer Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA, OMFLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- SHELLY MERCER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-01866 (W.D. Mich., June 15, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as its failed to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly, non-exempt manufacturing/production employee for Defendant. The Defendant is a "manufacturer of kitchen and laundry appliances" through its brand portfolio consisting of "Whirlpool, Kitchen Aid, JennAir, Maytag, Amana, Brastemp, Consul, and InSinkErator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, Ohio 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Carlos Hernandez, individually and for others similarly situated v. WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2529223 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03113. The Complaint brings claims for alleged: National Origin Discrimination; Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin; Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation; Wrongful Termination; Retaliation for Whistleblower Activity; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation; Failure to Provide Itemized Accurate Wage Statements; Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. Carolyn B. Hall, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com carolyn.hall@ogletree.com - and - Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Haik Kolsuzyan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com haik.kolsuzyan@ogletree.com XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Johnson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAYNIQUE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XSOLIS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00815 (M.D. Tenn., June 15, 2026) is a putative class action about the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information (PHI) from a foreseeable, preventable data breach. On January 20, 2026, criminal hackers accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored therein, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical treatment information, medical diagnosis information, medical record numbers, medical treatment dates, medical treatment locations, and patient IDs or account numbers, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members (the Data Breach). Accordingly, the Defendant did not detect the Data Breach until January 22, 2026. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant or its clients who, in order to obtain services from Defendant or its clients, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive and confidential Private Information. The Defendant could not perform its operations or provide the services it does without collecting Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at least, even after the patient-provider relationship has ended. As a business handling Private Information, the Defendant owes the individuals to whom the data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information to unauthorized persons -- and especially hackers with nefarious intentions -- will harm the affected individuals, including but not limited to by the invasion of their private health matters, says the suit. The Defendant is an artificial intelligence company that services patients and health care providers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ********* 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 ***