260625.mbx

260625.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 25, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 126 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach 789123 INC: Curiel-Rosas Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ADVANCED RECOVERY: Discloses Website Users' Health Info to Google ALBERTA: Court Certifies Doctors' Overtime Class Action Suit ALETHEIA MARKETING: Ruhmkorff Sues for Age Discrimination AMAZON.COM INC: Rittenhouse Seeks Refund of Tariff Overcharges ASTRONOVA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Arcline Investment BRADFORD HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 BUCKMAN'S INC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CAPITAL USA: McLemee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CHOBANI LLC: Knox Sues Over Deceptive Protein Content of Yogurt COSTAR GROUP: Class Suit Accuses Data Providers of Rent Collusion CSAA INSURANCE: Jabban Files Suit Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Epiter-Smith Says DOLCE & GABBANA: Rudnick Wiretapping Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. DOLLAR GENERAL: Sanchez Balks at Synthetic Fragrances in Facilities EDEN RELAXATION: Xu Suit Seeks Hair Stylists' Unpaid Wages EMBECTA CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ERASCA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Aquino Alleges EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Secure Private Info, Alvarez Alleges FOX ROTHSCHILD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trotter Says GRAIL INC: Robbins Sues for Damages Over Share Price Drop GRANO DE CAFE: Faces Villalba Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. GRAYSON BENTLEY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Kramer Says GYMSHARK USA: Faces Lupea Suit Over Products' Promotional Content HAMRA ENTERPRISES: Lao Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Balks at Inadequate Data Security IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION: Wilson Suit Removed to C.D. California JENNYS ROTI SHOP: Cruz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York JET SERT CO: Salcido-Lopez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois JIMCO INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JLAIL LLC: Salazar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. JOHN CUNHA: Galvan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNNY WAS LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JOSEPH'S FRESH: Fails to Pay All Work Performed, Johnson Alleges JUVENON LLC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Rivera Class Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. KOHLER CO: Lim Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KYB AMERICAS: Data Breach Suit Deal Final OK Hearing Set Sept 25 LA PEROUSE LLC: James Files Suit in C.D. California LEONIDA CONSTANDATOS: Zavalko Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LUMINIS HEALTH: Lilly Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Technicians MASTEC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sylvester Says MASTER STAFFING: Gaitin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MATSUDA'S BY GREEN ACRES: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foam Product Suits Transferred to D.S.C. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Shares Drivers' Info Without Notice, Suit Says NELSON UNIVERSITY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach P&V CONSTRUCTION: Villatoro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT PUNTO ROJO: Faces Zapata Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Sued for Discontinuing Women's Rugby Team SEA BAGS: Sheffield Sues Over Deceptive Marketing E-mails ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH: Melendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Protect Info, Pineda-Arellano Says STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rognlien Says UNITED EDUCATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Perkins Says UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Faces Class Suit Over Alumni Email Accounts UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS: Tremblay Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info URBAN ONE: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Suit for $675,000 WHALECO INC: Klassen Files Suit Over TCPA Breach WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge XSOLIS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Martinez Alleges ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Carl Ellison and Rebecca Choplin filed separate class action lawsuits against 7-Eleven Inc. Why: Ellison and Choplin claim 7-Eleven failed to adequately protect the personally identifiable information of consumers during a data breach in April. Where: The 7-Eleven class action lawsuits were both filed in Texas federal court. ATwo class action lawsuits separately accuse convenience store chain 7-Eleven of failing to adequately protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of consumers during an April 2026 data breach. Plaintiffs Carl Ellison and Rebecca Choplin, in class action lawsuits filed separately in Texas federal court, similarly argue 7-Eleven failed to protect consumers' PII and failed to "even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information." "This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to [7-Eleven's] negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data," the lawsuits say. The 7-Eleven class action lawsuits cite "public reports" that 7-Eleven allegedly experienced the data breach in April 2026 and was the victim of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign, which exposed private information stored on its network and systems. Ellison and Choplin each want to represent a nationwide class of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of the data breach. Extortion group takes credit for 7-Eleven data breach, class action says A "notorious" cybercriminal extortion group called ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the data breach on April 17, 2026, stating in a blog post at that time that it had stolen more than 600,000 records containing PII from 7-Eleven, according to the complaints. Ellison and Choplin claim in their class action lawsuits that ShinyHunters has already posted the private information for download on its dark web site. 7-Eleven, meanwhile, is accused by both Ellison and Choplin of disregarding the rights of those affected by the data breach by "intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that its network servers were protected against unauthorized intrusions." Ellison and Choplin argue 7-Eleven failed to "take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the data breach." Furthermore, they allege the company concealed the existence and extent of the data breach "for an unreasonable duration of time" and failed to disclose that it did not have "adequately robust security protocols and training practices in place to safeguard the plaintiff's and class members' private information." Both class action lawsuits claim 7-Eleven is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and negligence/negligence per se. Ellison and Choplin both demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, nominal and consequential damages for themselves and all class members. In another recent case involving 7-Eleven, Bank of America agreed to pay $2.25 million earlier this year to resolve claims it charged multiple out-of-network fees at 7-Eleven ATMs. Ellison is represented by Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile P.A. and John J. Nelson of Milberg PLLC. Choplin is represented by Leanna A. Loginov of Shamis & Gentile P.A. The 7-Eleven class action lawsuits are Choplin v. 7-Eleven Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01754, and Ellison v. 7-Eleven Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01755, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. [GN] 789123 INC: Curiel-Rosas Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- GYLMA CURIEL-ROSAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 789123, INC., dba ESTIATORIO MILOS, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01783 (D. Nev., June 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that Milos' regular business hours were approximately 11:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Milos regularly permitted guests to be seated shortly before the restaurant's stated closing time. As a result, the restaurant frequently continued serving guests well after 11:00 p.m. or 11:30 p.m., often extending dinner service past midnight. After the restaurant ceased serving customers each evening, Floor Managers were required to complete mandatory closing duties and reports assigned by Milos' GM and AGM. These closing tasks routinely required Floor Managers to remain on the premises until at least midnight and often later. Ms. Curiel-Rosas was routinely scheduled to begin her shifts at 3:00 p.m. On each scheduled shift, she was expected to remain on duty through the close of business and complete the required post-closing duties. As a result, Ms. Curiel-Rosas regularly worked shifts lasting nine hours or more per day, frequently extending past midnight. All Collective Members similarly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation, pursuant to Defendant's uniform policy of classifying all Floor Managers as exempt. Defendant's misclassification of all Floor Managers as exempt was willful. Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether its classification of Floor Managers as exempt violated the FLSA, says the suit. Plaintiff Gylma Curiel-Rosas was employed by Defendant as a Floor Manager from January 6, 2025, through December 28, 2025. Defendant 789123, Inc. doing business as Estiatorio Milos owns and operates Estiatorio Milos, a full-service restaurant located within the Venetian Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jemma E. Dunn, Esq. Matthew T. Hale, Esq. John M. Orr, Esq. GREENBERG GROSS LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 777-0888 Facsimile: (702) 777-0801 E-mail: JDunn@GGTrialLaw.com MHale@GGTrialLaw.com JOrr@GGTrialLaw.com ADVANCED RECOVERY: Discloses Website Users' Health Info to Google ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERESA LATIMORE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED RECOVERY SYSTEMS LLC d/b/a THE RECOVERY VILLAGE, Case No. 0:26-cv-61714 (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2026) arises from the collection and disclosure of website visitors' sensitive personal health information (PHI) -- specifically, their addiction-treatment-seeking communications and related health and personal data -- by Defendant ARS to Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation, without prior notice and consent, through tracking mechanisms embedded in Defendant's website, www.therecoveryvillage.com. ARS operates one of the largest behavioral healthcare organizations in the United States, doing business as The Recovery Village. Through its Website, ARS enables individuals struggling with substance use disorders to assess their addiction, locate treatment centers nationwide, initiate the admissions process, verify their insurance coverage, and contact ARS's admissions team. Every page of the Website is directed at one of the most vulnerable populations imaginable: people battling addiction who are gathering the courage and practical information needed to seek help, says the suit. The Plaintiff also brings a claim for unjust enrichment. The Defendant derived substantial economic benefit—including reduced advertising costs, enhanced behavioral targeting data, and improved marketing performance -- from the unauthorized interception and commercial use of Plaintiff's and Class members' private health information. ARS does business as "The Recovery Village" and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Founded in 2013, ARS is a physician-led behavioral healthcare organization that operates a national network of addiction treatment and co-occurring mental health treatment centers. ARS provides a full continuum of care, including medical detox, inpatient rehabilitation, outpatient programs, and aftercare services. ARS employs approximately 488 people in the United States and reports annual revenue of approximately $100 million.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. SCHWARTZBAUM 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (786) 453-8485 E-mail: adam@schwartzbaum.com admin@schwartzbaum.com ALBERTA: Court Certifies Doctors' Overtime Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Gladys Jalipa of HRReporter reports that Alberta Health Services is facing a class-action lawsuit from foreign-trained doctors who say the health authority failed to pay them for overtime, denied them rest breaks, and left them working unpaid after their shifts ended. Justice C.D. Simard of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta certified the case as a class proceeding on June 11, 2026, allowing it to move ahead on behalf of potentially hundreds of current and former clinical assistants. The lead plaintiff, Mena Salamh, trained as a cardiologist in Egypt before emigrating to Canada in 2013. Alberta Health Services hires clinical assistants who were trained as physicians in other countries but not licensed to practise medicine in Alberta. The health authority now refers to these employees, and a related group once called clinical surgical assistants, as associate physicians. Salamh is suing as a representative plaintiff for all non-management, non-unionized employees who have worked for the authority as clinical assistants since August 12, 2013. He claims the employer breached its obligations to that group and acted knowingly and in bad faith, allegations Alberta Health Services has not yet answered with a statement of defence. Claims of unpaid overtime At the centre of the lawsuit are claims that the authority failed to pay clinical assistants properly for overtime, did not give them required rest periods, did not pay them for the patient handover work they did at the end of their shifts, and required them to work overly long shifts, all contrary to Alberta's Employment Standards Code. None of these claims has been proven. Alberta Health Services argued, among other things, that the unpaid work claims belonged under the province's workers' compensation regime, which would bar a civil suit. Justice Simard rejected that view, writing that "To suggest that an employer not paying an employee for providing services required in their employment contract constitutes a workplace 'accident' stretches the normal meaning of that word to an extreme and unreasonable extent." The claim also originally raised discrimination tied to where the clinical assistants were educated and to their ancestry, but Salamh conceded during argument that he was not pursuing discrimination as a separate cause of action. The judge declined to strike those allegations, finding they could still be relevant to other claims, including a request for punitive damages. Class action certified Because the application dealt only with certification, Justice Simard did not rule on whether any of the allegations are true. The judge certified most of the common questions the plaintiff put forward, declining only three, and allowed just one damages question, the class's entitlement to punitive damages, to be decided collectively. Treating the dispute as a single class action, the judge found, would serve judicial economy and access to justice. There are hundreds of clinical assistants, and forcing each to sue individually would consume court resources and leave workers facing heavy financial burdens. The judge also pointed to the workers' position. In Alberta, the authority is one of very few employers through which internationally trained doctors can use their medical training without requalifying to practise, which the judge found heightened their exposure to reprisal. "Their allegations, if proven to be true, demonstrate that they are a group with substantial vulnerability to their employer," Justice Simard wrote. The parties now have 45 days to try to agree on how the case will proceed. [GN] ALETHEIA MARKETING: Ruhmkorff Sues for Age Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA RUHMKORFF, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ALETHEIA MARKETING & MEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01873-L (N.D. Tex., June 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. This is an age discrimination case arising from Defendant's termination of Plaintiff, a 59-year-old Strategy Director, under the guise of a reduction in force. The Defendant told Plaintiff that her employment was being terminated because of business conditions and the need to reduce expenses. But Plaintiff's work did not disappear. Instead, the Defendant redistributed Plaintiff's accounts and responsibilities to substantially younger employees, including younger employees Plaintiff had trained. The Defendant also retained less experienced and less tenured younger employees while selecting Plaintiff for termination, alleges the suit. The Defendant claimed that the decision was based on workforce needs, staffing needs, performance, tenure, and budget, but those stated criteria do not explain why Plaintiff, a senior and experienced Strategy Director with no formal discipline, was selected over substantially younger underperforming employees who absorbed her work. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the wages, benefits, liquidated damages, and other relief available under the ADEA. Aletheia Marketing & Media, Inc. is a marketing and media company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com - and - Michael A. Whitsitt, Esq. THE WHITSITT LAW FIRM 78 Folly Road Suite B9 #1405 T Charleston, SC 29407 Telephone: (843) 548-7551 E-mail: michael@whitsittlawfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Rittenhouse Seeks Refund of Tariff Overcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY RITTENHOUSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03392 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) seeks to force Defendant to return funds collected from Plaintiff and other millions of consumers to cover International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs between February 2025 and February 2026. This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff, purchaser of goods that Defendant sold throughout all the United States, who allegedly suffered the economic burden of the President Donald Trump Administration's tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and against Defendant who shifted the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs to consumers throughout the United States by means of price increases on imported goods as well as U.S.-sourced goods not subject to tariffs sold by Defendant to Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Defendant receives an inequitable windfall by collecting refunds from the federal government for tariff costs that were shifted to and paid by Plaintiff, who purchased goods from Defendant, and therefore, is the real party in interest to receive the IEEPA tariff refunds, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a judgment that requires Defendant to return to Plaintiff all IEEPA duties passed on to customers, with interest. He also seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Defendant recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational consumer goods and technology company that conducts business in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon Santurce, PR 00907 Telephone: (787) 493-5088 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 E-mail: hunter@nsprlaw.com - and - Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: sbadala@napolilaw.com - and - Shayna E. Sacks, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 360 Lexington Avenue, 11xth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: ssacks@napolilaw.com ASTRONOVA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Arcline Investment ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 AstroNova, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALOT) related to its sale to Arcline Investment Management. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, AstroNova shareholders are expected to receive $29.00 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/astronova-inc/. 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] BRADFORD HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Bradford Health Services and Bradford Health Partners have agreed to a $900,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the rehabilitation and healthcare service providers failed to safeguard patients' private information from a November 2023 data breach. The $900,000 Bradford Health Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 1, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents who were sent notice that their private information was impacted by the November 2023 data breach. Court documents state that the breach affected the private information of 32,425 current and former Bradford Health patients. The court-approved website for the Bradford Health class action settlement can be found at BradfordDisputeSettlement.com. Bradford Health settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as telephone records, correspondence or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive an estimated $150 cash payment with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's payment may increase or decrease depending on the number of claims filed, among other factors. Finally, in addition to either cash payment, all class members can submit a claim form to receive three years of medical data monitoring, which includes one-bureau monitoring and identity theft insurance. To submit a Bradford Health claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Bradford Health settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than August 17, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Bradford Health settlement final approval following a hearing on September 1, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Bradford Health class action lawsuit claimed that the Alabama-based provider of drug and alcohol addiction treatment and rehab programs failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect current and former patients' private information, leading to a data breach in November 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been impacted by the breach included names, dates of birth, driver's license and passport numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, treatment and diagnosis information, physicians' names, medical record numbers, health insurance details and financial information. [GN] BUCKMAN'S INC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUCKMAN'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04746 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.skis.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, 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, the last occurring on May 4, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Burton Vent Gloves-Youth 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Buckman's Inc. operates the website that sells ski gear and snow skis & equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAPITAL USA: McLemee Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TYSON MCLEMEE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAPITAL USA Case No. 3:26-cv-00451 (D. Nev., June 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Capital USA for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law. Capital employed McLemee as one of its Hourly Employees. Capital paid McLemee and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. McLemee and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Capital does not pay McLemee and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Capital requires McLemee and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to perform their job duties, prepare equipment, and attend safety meetings, on its premises, prior to the start of their shifts, the suit says. Likewise, Capital requires McLemee and the other Hourly Employees to change out of their safety gear and protective clothing and shower, following the end of their shifts. But Capital does not pay McLemee and the other Hourly Employees for this time before and after their shifts, the suit adds. Capital employed McLemee as a driller's helper from approximately December 2024 until March 2026. Capital classified McLemee as non-exempt and paid him by the hour. Throughout his employment, Capital subjected McLemee to its pre/post shift off the clock policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme, the suit further alleges. Capital provides provides full service mining, drilling, maintenance and geochemical analysis solutions to customers within the mineral industry.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NE 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Kevin E. Collins, Jr. CA Bar No. 326349 JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: kcollins@mybackwages.com CHOBANI LLC: Knox Sues Over Deceptive Protein Content of Yogurt --------------------------------------------------------------- HALE KNOX, individually, and on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. CHOBANI, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05093 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) seeks redress for Chobani's unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the protein content in its consumer yogurt food products. According to the complaint, consumers are more than ever interested in maximizing their protein intake, which provides a variety of known positive health impacts. In recent years, 20 grams of protein per serving has become a crucial threshold driving consumer purchase interest across a broad range of food and beverage categories -- including yogurt. Chobani knows consumers are mindful of the amount and number of grams of protein they consume per serving and that protein content is a material driver in the purchase of yogurt products promoting protein. Thus, in 2024, Chobani introduced a line of yogurt products called "20G Protein", including a 32-ounce size. Chobani acknowledged the importance of the 20-grams-per-serving protein threshold by using it in the Chobani Yogurt's very name, and by featuring that claim prominently in the product's labeling and advertising. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that the Chobani Yogurt will actually provide 20 grams of protein per serving as stated on the Product package. However, as detailed, the Defendant misrepresents the true protein amount per serving on each of the Chobani Yogurt products sold to Consumers, says the suit. Chobani produces dairy products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Scott Silberfein, 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 silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com - and - James Ferraro, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com COSTAR GROUP: Class Suit Accuses Data Providers of Rent Collusion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Propmodo reports that FitFactariDC LLC filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 12 against CoStar Group, CBRE, Colliers, Cushman & Wakefield, JLL, and Newmark. The suit alleges a hub-and-spoke price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act, claiming CoStar collected and redistributed sensitive lease information while the five brokerages submitted their data to gain access to competitors' figures. FitFactariDC, a commercial tenant that signed an office lease in Denver brokered by one of the defendants, claims it paid artificially inflated effective rents as a result of the alleged information sharing. The complaint states that defendants used near-real-time visibility into competitors' lease terms to align asking rents, reduce concessions, and resist tenant negotiations. CoStar General Counsel Gene Boxer called the complaint "slapdash" and lacking in facts, arguing that transparent market data improves market efficiency and benefits all participants, including tenants. Arlington, Virginia-based CoStar has gathered and protected its market data since 1987 and considers it an essential tool used by brokerages, landlords, property owners, investors, and tenants. Devin Freedman of Freedman Normand Friedland LLP, the firm representing FitFactariDC, said the complaint shows how CoStar gave competing brokerages access to each other's private deals, resulting in less competition and higher rents. CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, JLL, and Newmark did not respond to requests for comment, while Colliers declined to comment. The lawsuit challenges the operating framework for much of commercial real estate, where CoStar serves as a primary source of market intelligence. The case echoes antitrust charges against Texas-based RealPage, which settled with the federal government late last year and agreed to restrictions on how it suggests rents and trains its AI models. CoStar faces a separate class-action lawsuit filed in April by a boutique brokerage alleging monopolization of the online CRE listing space, and Crexi is suing CoStar over claims of an illegal data monopoly in a case the Supreme Court allowed to proceed in March. [GN] CSAA INSURANCE: Jabban Files Suit Over Unlawful Insurance Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABDULKADER JABBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CSAA Insurance Exchange, Mobilitas Insurance Company of Arizona, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05669 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2026) is a class action challenging a systemic and unlawful insurance claims-handling scheme conceived and implemented by Defendants to evade their core coverage obligations to rideshare drivers in California. According to the complaint, on October 1, 2022, and at all times relevant to this action, Defendant Mobilitas issued a commercial insurance policy providing coverage to Lyft's drivers throughout California. Defendant Mobilitas issued, and continues to issue, this policy as a non-admitted surplus lines carrier, and thus is not subject to regulation by the California Department of Insurance as it relates to this policy. Throughout the entirety of the applicable policy period wherein Mobilitas was the named insurer to the subject policy of insurance issued to Lyft, Mobilitas sent 100% of the premiums it received under the Lyft policy directly to CSAA. In turn, CSAA accepted and assumed 100% of the covered risks under the written policy. The Plaintiff was insured under a Mobilitas policy providing Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage while operating as a driver for Lyft, Inc. when he suffered injuries in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist while transporting a passenger; and has made a claim for UM/UIM benefits under the Mobilitas policy. Consistent with Defendants' "one-way street" protocol, Mobilitas has never advised Plaintiff Jabban that his file would remain open for a "true-up" or secondary review of his unpaid medical balances after Blue Star's involvement concludes. Mobilitas's diversion of his economic damages was total and permanent. At Mobilitas' express direction, and as a direct result of its refusal to consider his economic damages under the primary UM/UIM policy, Plaintiff Jabban was directed to submit his medical bills to Blue Star. Blue Star, in turn, reimburses claimants pursuant to a restrictive workers' compensation fee schedule, paying only a fraction of the billed amount or the reasonable value of the services rendered. Unlike traditional statutory workers' compensation, which strictly prohibits medical providers from balance-billing injured workers, the OAI policy provides no such statutory shield. Consequently, Defendants' diversion strips Class Members of critical legal protections, exposing Plaintiff Jabban and the Class to personal legal liability for the substantial remaining balances owed to their medical providers. To date, Mobilitas continues to refuse to handle Plaintiff Jabban's claim as primary, and has failed to conduct any independent investigation into the value of Plaintiff Jabban's medical expenses or lost wages. The complaint alleges that Defendant CSAA is liable for unlawful conduct under at least three independent legal theories. First, Defendant Mobilitas has acted as the agent, instrumentality, and alter ego of Defendant CSAA, such that the corporate form should be disregarded. Second, CSAA is liable as a direct participant in the tortious conduct, as it conceived, directed, and implemented the unlawful insurance scheme. Third, CSAA is vicariously liable as the principal for the acts of its agent, Mobilitas, which were committed within the scope of the agency relationship. Because Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the entire class of driver-claimants, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Plaintiff requests a judicial declaration that Defendants' challenged scheme is unlawful, and a permanent injunction compelling Defendants to conform that scheme and its implementing policy to the requirements of California law. Plaintiff Abdulkader Jabban is a resident of the County of San Diego, State of California and was insured under a Mobilitas policy. Defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange ("CSAA"), acting as the parent, principal, and architect of the scheme implemented alongside its subsidiary Mobilitas, is an insurance company incorporated in California offering automobile, homeowners, and other lines of insurance in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Defendant Mobilitas Insurance Company of Arizona ("Mobilitas") is a commercial insurance company incorporated in Arizona and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CSAA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Ave, Ste 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net - and - Michael A. VanGalio, Esq. VANGALIO LAW CORP 4203 Genessee Ave. Ste 103 Box 163 San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (805) 720-3938 E-mail: michael@vangaliolaw.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com - and - Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2515 Jay Ave, Ste First Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 423-6599 E-mail: fbartela@tzlegal.com pbrickman@tzlegal.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Epiter-Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM EPITER-SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-12596-AK (D. Mass., June 8, 2026) is an action to secure redress against Defendants for the alleged reckless and negligent violation of Plaintiff's privacy rights. According to the complaint, the unauthorized third-party hacker group ShinyHunters gained access to DentaQuest's data servers and accessed, viewed and exfiltrated the sensitive private information of its patients, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Based on available information, the third-party hacker group accessed and exfiltrated over 233 gigabytes of sensitive medical and personal data. The types of private information impacted include, inter alia, full names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health insurance and medical information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are victims of the data breach who had their Private Information collected, stored, and ultimately breached by Defendants. The Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably expected that Defendants would adhere to statute and regulation and maintain reasonable security to protect their private information. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known that Defendants would not do so, they would not have provided Defendants with their sensitive private information, says the suit. DentaQuest Group, Inc. is a dental insurance and benefits administrator in the United States. It provides dental plans to millions of Americans through various government programs (such as Medicaid or MassHealth) and covers services ranging from routine check-ups and cleanings to filings, crowns and orthodontics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas F. Hartman, Esq. HARTMAN LAW, P.C. 5 East Street Franklin, MA 02038 Telephone: (617) 807-0091 E-mail: dhartman@hartmanlawpc.com DOLCE & GABBANA: Rudnick Wiretapping Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CARMEN RUDNICK, individually and On behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLCE & GABBANA S.r.l., Defendant, Case No. 2026-00902-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03916 to the proceeding. The amended Complaint brings causes of action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a purported class for violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, for invasion of privacy, and for breach of contract. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l. designs and distributes apparel products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Philip N. Yannella, Esq. Maya C. Bradley, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5506 Facsimile: (215) 569-5555 E-mail: philip.yannella@blankrome.com maya.bradley@blankrome.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Sanchez Balks at Synthetic Fragrances in Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE SANCHEZ, MICHELLE POLLOK, NICOLE WULF, AMY KOCH, DIANE KOCH, and ERIN GAVORCIK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05520 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant seeking remedies for Dollar General's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities despite its knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant claims to offer goods to the general public, including Representative Plaintiffs, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. The Plaintiffs, therefore, bring this action, individually, and on behalf of the Class of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's facilities. In doing so, Representative Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the Class, seek injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's numerous unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices, which run afoul of a multitude of state and federal laws. Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer. The Company offers merchandise, including consumable items, seasonal items, home products and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com EDEN RELAXATION: Xu Suit Seeks Hair Stylists' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- SEN XU, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDEN RELAXATION SPA INC. d/b/a Eden Nail d/b/a Eden Lash and EMERSON EDEN NAIL SPA INC d/b/a Eden Relaxation Spa d/b/a Eden Hair YANG ZHAO a/k/a Eden Zhao, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06811 (D.N.J., June 9, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law arising from the Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA and NJWHL, that he is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage, (2) unpaid overtime wages (3) liquidated damages, (4) prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or (5) attorney's fees and cost. Plaintiff Sen Xu was employed by the Defendants to work as a hair stylist/barber at Emerson Eden Nail Spa Inc., first for two days in 2021 and then for a period of time from March 3, 2023 to January 27, 2025. Eden Relaxation Spa Inc. d/b/a Eden Nails d/b/a Eden Lash is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com EMBECTA CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Embecta Corp. (NASDAQ: EMBC) securities between November 25, 2025 and May 4, 2026. Embecta Corp., is a medical device company, that provides solutions to improve the health and wellbeing of people living with diabetes in the United States and internationally. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Embecta Corp. (EMBC) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants provided investors with material information pertaining to Embecta's guidance for second quarter and full year 2026. Defendants' statements included, among other things, misleading information touting Embecta's fiscal year 2026; particularly, continuously reaffirming the Company's revenue guidance and strength in the pen needle segment. Plaintiff alleges that on May 5, 2026, Embecta published second quarter 2026 fiscal results disclosing that the Company failed to meet its guidance for second quarter 2026 and lowered fiscal year 2026 guidance. In particular, Embecta revealed that revenue declined over 14%, much higher than the guidance of flat to a decline of 2% and that the Company was lowering estimates on US performance, largely in part due to weakness in its pen needle sales. On this news, Embecta's stock price fell to $3.90 per share on May 5, 2026. What Now? You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Embecta Corp. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/embecta-corp/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Embecta Corp. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ERASCA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., notifies investors in Erasca, Inc. ("Erasca" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ERAS) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors of Erasca, Inc. who were adversely affected if they purchased the Company's shares between January 14, 2025 and April 26, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Visit the link to get more information and be contacted by a member of the team: https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-eras/ Erasca investors should contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-eras/ to learn more. CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, Erasca and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the class period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the preclinical data for the Company's ERAS-0015 product, a pan-RAS molecular glue for the treatment of patients with RAS-mutated solid tumors, was based on improper comparisons to Revolution Medicines, Inc. and placed Erasca at risk of violating patent and trade secret protections; and (ii) based on the foregoing, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements related to ERAS-0015. The case is Cheng v. Erasca, Inc., No. 26-cv-03481. WHAT TO DO? If you invested in Erasca and suffered a loss during the relevant time frame, you have until August 10, 2026 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff; however, your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms -- According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contacts Lewis Kahn, Esq, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 (877) 515-1850 lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN] EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Aquino Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA AQUINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERTEC GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-1372 (D.P.R., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members which resulted in a data breach. The complaint relates that in the course of collecting Private Information from Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant promised to provide confidentiality and adequate security for the data it collected from Plaintiff and Class Members through its applicable privacy policy and through other disclosures in compliance with statutory privacy requirements. On May 13, 2026, Defendant detected unauthorized access to its IT Network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach and discovered that the following types of Private Information were compromised: names, contact information, transaction records, payment card numbers. On June 9, 2026, Defendant filed a form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Maria Aquino is a resident and citizen of Comerio, Puerto Rico. Defendant EverTec Group, LLC is a transaction processing and financial technology company that provides services to numerous financial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas H. Sanders, Esq. MILBERG, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600 San Juan, PR, 00907 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: dsanders@milberg.com - and - Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Secure Private Info, Alvarez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERTEC GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01373 (D.P.R., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members which resulted in a data breach. The complaint relates that in the course of collecting Private Information from Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant promised to provide confidentiality and adequate security for the data it collected from Plaintiff and Class Members through its applicable privacy policy and through other disclosures in compliance with statutory privacy requirements. On May 13, 2026, Defendant detected unauthorized access to its IT Network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach and discovered that these types of Private Information were compromised: names, contact information, transaction records, payment card numbers. On June 9, 2026, Defendant filed a form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Miguel Alvarez is a resident and citizen of Villalba, Puerto Rico. Defendant EverTec Group, LLC is a transaction processing and financial technology company that provides services to numerous financial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas H. Sanders, Esq. MILBERG, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600 San Juan, PR, 00907 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: dsanders@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com FOX ROTHSCHILD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trotter Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JASMINE TROTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03931 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. On May 28, 2026, private information contained in Defendant's network was accessed by an unauthorized third-party. To date, the Defendant has not issued a notice about the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and for breach of implied contract. Fox Rothschild LLP is a law firm that operates 30 offices throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 - and - FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 GRAIL INC: Robbins Sues for Damages Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ROBBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAIL, INC., ROBERT P. RAGUSA, JOSHUA J. OFMAN, and HARPAL S. KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05428 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Grail common stock between May 13, 2025, and February 19, 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 the likelihood of success of Grail's NHS-Galleri trial achieving its primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction in Stage III & IV cancers. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the success of Galleri, consistently promoting its effectiveness "in the real world" and the positive predictive value observed in the Pathfinder studies and in NHS-Galleri's top-line results as sources of confidence for its potential. The Defendants further routinely touted the design of the NHS-Galleri and how three years were necessary to demonstrate the achievability of the primary endpoint, says the suit. 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 Grail's NHS-Galleri trial following the reveal of the top-line results covering the first screening round. On February 19, 2026, Grail announced that the "primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed" in the NHS-Galleri Trial. The Company attributed this shortcoming, in part, on "probably need a longer follow-up time to be able to [compare the study arms] adequately." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Grail's revelation. The price of Grail's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $101.53 per share on February 19, 2026, Grail's stock price fell to $50.21 per share on February 20, 2026, a decline of about 50.55% in the span of just a single day, alleges the suit. Grail, Inc. is a commercial stage healthcare company with a focus on early cancer detection through screening methodology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com GRANO DE CAFE: Faces Villalba Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ ALBA VILLALBA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANO DE CAFE BAKERY RESTAURANT III CORP. (D/B/A GRANO DE CAFE COLOMBIA), and ALEXANDER BEDOYA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03432 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this suit over the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to furnish wage accurate statements, and failure to pay on a regular weekly basis. Plaintiff Villalba was employed by the Defendants as a cashier, porter and counter attendant at the Colombian restaurant/bakery from February 1, 2024 until May 9, 2026. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian restaurant/bakery located in New York under the name "Grano de Cafe Colombia."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GRAYSON BENTLEY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Kramer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BETH KRAMER, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. GRAYSON BENTLEY, INC., d/b/a BUTTERCLOTH, Case No. 1:26-cv-05066 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website, www.buttercloth.com in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Website functions as an interactive retail platform and digital gateway for Defendant's men's apparel business, which offers premium shirts, sweaters, outerwear, and related accessories to consumers across the United States, including New York. On multiple occasions in February and March 2026, Ms. Kramer visited www.buttercloth.com using screen-reading software with the intent to shop for premium men's shirts as gifts for her adult son and nephew, who she regularly purchases clothing gifts for on birthdays, holidays, and other occasions. Ms. Kramer is a proficient user of screen-reading software, including Job Access With Speech and/or NonVisual Desktop Access, which she relies on daily to navigate digital environments independently. Grayson offers mobile messaging program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail; rschonfeld@employeejustice.com GYMSHARK USA: Faces Lupea Suit Over Products' Promotional Content ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mihaela Lupea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gymshark USA, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05073 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) seeks redress for consumers who purchased Gymshark products after being exposed to influencers who posted promotional content at Gymshark's behest without adequately disclosing their relationship to the brand and the fact that their posts were paid advertisements. According to the complaint, for years, Gymshark has deceived consumers by enlisting an army of fitness influencers, whom Gymshark locks into exclusive promotional contracts, and instructing them to post Gymshark content without disclosing to consumers that such posts are paid advertisements. Gymshark's marketing strategies are deceptive and unfair -- as confirmed by direct guidance and authority from the Federal Trade Commission and social media platforms like Instagram -- and they illegally induce consumers to purchase products, and pay higher prices, that they otherwise would not have, says the suit. Gymshark, which was founded in 2012, is a major athletic apparel brand that targets younger demographics and relies heavily on influencer marketing to drive its growth. Gymshark intentionally, deceptively, and systemically causes paid social media influencers to post advertisements for Gymshark that appear as non-sponsored "organic" social media content. Gymshark engages in this practice to give consumers the false impression that its advertisements reflect influencers' honest and uncompensated opinions, although, in fact, Gymshark pays those influencers for their content and endorsements, and thereby wrongfully induces consumers to buy Gymshark products and/or pay an unmerited premium, the suit alleges. Gymshark is an athletic brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter Greenbaum, Esq. Casey Olbrantz, Esq. REENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 240 Kent Street Brooklyn, NY 11222 E-mail: carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com casey@greenbaumolbrantz.com - and - Bodgdan Enica, Esq. ACCESS LAW GROUP (ILLINOIS) 20283 State Rd. 7 Boca Raton FL 33498 HAMRA ENTERPRISES: Lao Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- ZORAIDA LAO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HAMRA ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and WENDY'S OF NEW ENGLAND, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:26-cv-3348 (W.D. Mo., June 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Manager. During her employment, Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' facility in Schiller Park, Illinois. The Defendants paid their Hourly Employees at varying hourly rates. The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $19.43. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, she and Defendants' Hourly Employees earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration, says the Plaintiff. Hamra is a franchisee of Wendys, Panera Bread, Noodles & Company and Holiday Inn Express.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Ste. 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Balks at Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOYCE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION D/B/A IAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00909 (D. Mass., June 5, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of Defendant, the putative class members. On May 28, 2026, the Defendant mailed Plaintiff a letter advising her that personally identifiable information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Defendant's customers, including Plaintiff's. The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for business relationships, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. Industrial Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company based in New Haven, Connecticut. Founded in 1955, IAC provides consumer financing to both the retail and direct sales markets, with a focus on automobile financing for credit-challenged buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION: Wilson Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Wilson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MIDWAY STAFFING, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CVRI2602599 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03195. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges twelve causes of action: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Required Recovery Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenses; Unfair Business Practices; and PAGA Representative Action.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric M. Fox, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: eric.fox@ogletree.com JENNYS ROTI SHOP: Cruz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennys Roti Shop Inc., et al. The case is styled as Angel Junior Paulino Cruz, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Jennys Roti Shop Inc. doing business as: Jennys Roti Shop, Ron Sookar, Jennifer Sookar, Case No. 1:26-cv-04865 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Jenny's Roti Shop is a popular Caribbean restaurant located on Castle Hill Ave in The Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com JET SERT CO: Salcido-Lopez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Jet Sert Co. The case is styled as Ignacio Salcido-Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. The Jet Sert Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-06743 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Jet Sert Co. -- https://jelsert.com/ -- is a manufacturer of food and beverage products ranging from drink mixes to dessert mixes and freezer pops.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JIMCO INC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jimco, Inc. The case is styled as Mario R. Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jimco, Inc., Case No. 26STCV18620 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jimco Inc. -- https://www.jimcoinc.com/ -- is an industrial scrap metal recycling company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com JLAIL LLC: Salazar Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JLAIL LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Miguel Salazar on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. JLAIL LLC d/b/a J&J Enterprises, Sarwinder Jyoti Kaur, Randolph Breton individually, Case No. 717431/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial – Contract (Employment)." JLAIL LLC is a construction company in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael John Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 825-8620 JOHN CUNHA: Galvan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Leopoldo Galvan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JOHN CUNHA and JFM CONCRETE INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-03504 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (collectively "NYLL"), as a result of the Defendants: unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. The Plaintiff generally worked a total of 60 to 72 hours. The Plaintiff was not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff did not supervise any other employee and had no supervisory authority whatsoever over any other person. While the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours a week, the Defendants willfully failed to pay him minimum wage and overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver, mower, landscaper, planter and overall landscape professional, from January 2025 to March 2026. The Defendants is a landscaping company that offers the following services: landscape design, installation, maintenance, pavers, veneers, facades, stone-work, pool surrounds, driveways and patios, outdoor kitchens, and retaining walls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Phone: 516/280.4600 Fax: 516/280.4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com JOHNNY WAS LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnny Was, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02919-DWF-JFD (D. Minn., June 11, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.johnnywas.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers women's apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, denim, kimonos, outerwear, swimwear, activewear, handbags, shoes, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com JOSEPH'S FRESH: Fails to Pay All Work Performed, Johnson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIM JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOSEPH'S FRESH MARKETS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-07064 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendant employed hourly employees at its sole location located in Forest Park, Illinois. The Defendant used a number of job titles including, but not limited to, Butcher and Journeyman Meat Cutter, to refer to its hourly employees (Hourly Employees). Accordingly, the Defendant classified its Hourly Employees as non-exempt. Defendant required its Hourly Employees to wear personal protective equipment when working in its Facility. The Defendant is liable for its failure to pay its Hourly Employees for all work performed, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant is an independent supermarket providing comprehensive grocery, prepared dining, and specialty retail services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MH 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com JUVENON LLC: Senior Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUVENON, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04840 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 30, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Bloodflow-7 supplement 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. He 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Juvenon, LLC operates the website that offers health supplements.[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 KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Rivera Class Suit Removed to E.D. Mo. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as REINERIO ALBA RIVERA, CLAUDIA PADILLA CRUZ, YERY JOHANNA CASTILLO RAITER, MARIA ELIZABETH BLANDINO TRUJILLO, AND YENIS MABEL MARTINEZ MELGAR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AS PLAINTIFF/CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, PLAINTIFFS VS. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, RAMON AVILA D/B/A G&A SERVICES, AND AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2611-CC00642, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 10, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-912 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts a four count lawsuit against Defendants alleging two claims under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"); one claim under common law for Quantum Meruit; and one claim under common law for Unjust Enrichment. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC offers services like integrated facility support, contract cleaning, floor care, restriping, plumbing, landscaping and snow plowing.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel P. Johnson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1201 Walnut Street Suite 1450 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: 816-627-4400 Facsimile: 816-627-4444 E-mail: dpjohnson@littler.com - and - Jennifer A. Goltermann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 1220 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-659-2000 Facsimile: 314-659-2099 E-mail: jgoltermann@littler.com KOHLER CO: Lim Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohler, Co. The case is styled as Linda Lim, an individual on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Kohler, Co., Case No. 26STCV18227 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Kohler Co. -- https://www.kohlercompany.com/ -- is an American manufacturing company founded in 1873 by John Michael Kohler, based in Kohler, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Azadian, Esq. AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC 707 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 200 La Canada Flt, CA 91011-3456 Phone: 626-449-4944 Fax: 626-628-1722 Email: george@azadianlawgroup.com KYB AMERICAS: Data Breach Suit Deal Final OK Hearing Set Sept 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that KYB Americas Corporation has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the automotive parts supplier failed to safeguard its current and former employees' personal information from a February 2025 data breach. The KYB Americas class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 28, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information was compromised in the February 2025 data breach, including all those who received notice of the incident. Court documents state that the KYB Americas settlement covers 2,041 people. The court-approved website for the KYB Americas class action settlement can be found at KYBDataSettlement.com. KYB Americas settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $300 for documented ordinary losses incurred between February 11, 2025 and August 26, 2026. This benefit covers the costs of credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage and more. Class members can also file a claim form to receive up to $5,000 for documented extraordinary losses incurred between February 11, 2025 and August 26, 2026. This benefit covers losses from fraud or identity theft due to the breach that are not covered by the ordinary-loss payout. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive documented-loss payments. Additionally, class members can submit a claim form for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum of $100. In lieu of the aforementioned benefits, class members can submit a claim form to receive an estimated $75 alternative cash payment with no proof required. Should the total amount of all claims exceed the $250,000 aggregate cap, class members' payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis. Finally, all class members can file a claim form for three years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and financial fraud insurance. To submit a KYB Americas claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All KYB Americas settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 26, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the KYB Americas settlement final approval following a hearing on September 25, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The KYB Americas class action lawsuit alleged that the automotive and industrial parts manufacturer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent a targeted cyberattack between February 11, 2025 and February 17, 2025. Per court documents, personal information that was potentially compromised in the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, and financial account information. [GN] LA PEROUSE LLC: James Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA Perouse, LLC. The case is styled as Ashlee James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA Perouse, LLC, Case No. 26STCV18394 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage Tort (General Jurisdiction)." La Perouse -- https://www.laperouse.us/ -- is a One-Stop-Shop for complete revenue cycle management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com LEONIDA CONSTANDATOS: Zavalko Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Zavalko and Valentina Zavalko on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LEONIDA CONSTANDATOS, NICHOLAS KONSTANTATOS and AINOS CORP., Case No. 2:26-cv-03511 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (collectively "NYLL"), as a result of the Defendants: unpaid wages for overtime work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. The Plaintiffs are, and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them one and one half times their hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The claims of Plaintiffs stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other Collective Plaintiffs. Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, and Collective and Class plaintiffs, wages with a pay statement containing the following information: employer's name, address and phone number, employee's name, dates covered by payment, basis of payment, hours worked, regular rates of pay, overtime rates of pay, gross and net wages, itemized deductions, and/or itemized allowances. Defendants failed to post or keep posted a notice explaining the minimum wage and overtime pay rights provided by the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as waitresses andcounterpersons. The Defendant is a full-service diner-restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Phone: 516/280.4600 Fax: 516/280.4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com LUMINIS HEALTH: Lilly Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Technicians ------------------------------------------------------------ LESTER LILLY, Baltimore City County, MD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v. LUMINIS HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02418-RDB (D. Md., June 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland State wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an anesthesiology technician at Defendant's Medical Center in Annapolis. He was hired to work for, and thereafter continued to work for, Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt employee, and routinely worked at least 40 hours per week. Luminis is nonprofit regional health system with numerous locations in Maryland that generated $1.31 billion in operating revenue in 2025.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Randolph T. Chen, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com rchen@classlawdc.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Amy C. Winters, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com awinters@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters , Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com MASTEC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sylvester Says --------------------------------------------------------- WILLIS SYLVESTER, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTEC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24016-BB (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information including, but not limited to, name and Social Security number. In early October 2025, the Defendant learned of suspicious activity within its IT network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation and determined that an unauthorized actor had gained access to a portion of its IT Network for several days in August 2025. On June 5, 2026 -- more than eight months after learning about the data breach -- the Defendant began providing notice to affected individuals, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. The 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. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. MasTec, Inc. is an American infrastructure engineering and construction company based in Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com MASTER STAFFING: Gaitin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Master Staffing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Gaitin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Master Staffing, Inc., May P. Mallari, Case No. 26STCV18057 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Master Staffing, Inc. -- https://master-staffing.com/ -- offer temporary per diem staffing, travel placements, and a full range of staffing solutions to meet facility's needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashkan Yonathan Shakouri, Esq. SHAKOURI LAW FIRM 401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 261-2824 Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com MATSUDA'S BY GREEN ACRES: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matsuda's By Green Acres, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Viridiana Martinez Ramos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Matsuda's By Green Acres, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV014344 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Matsudas -- https://matsudasllc.com/ -- is a wholesale nursery located in Northern California, providing a broad assortment of high-quality perennial, shrub, and tree species.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foam Product Suits Transferred to D.S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- In case product liability litigation, "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the District of Maryland, Northern District of Mississippi and the Southern District of Ohio, all to the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. MDL involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) collectively, these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to as PFAS, into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The MDL also includes claims by firefighters and others alleging that direct exposure to AFFF caused them injuries. There are three motions presented, Defendant 3M moves to transfer its Maryland action to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL while the State opposes this motion. Plaintiffs in the other two actions moved to vacate the panel's orders that conditionally transferred their respective actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL. The 3M Company and BFI Waste Systems of Alabama, LLC, oppose the motion of Corinth Gas & Water pending in the Northern District of Mississippi. Defendant United States of America opposes the motion to vacate by the City of Dayton. The panel contends that transfer also would be consistent with the panel's past practice in this docket as there is ample scope for coordination with discovery and pretrial proceedings in the MDL, which involve numerous other state actions. A full-text copy of the court's June 4, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymn8ww4s MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Shares Drivers' Info Without Notice, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Motorola Solutions has violated California law by allowing its automatic license plate reader (ALPR) systems to share identifiable vehicle and location data with the federal government and out-of-state agencies without notice or drivers' consent. The 21-page complaint says that the driver data indiscriminately captured by the Motorola Solutions ALPR systems is used to amass profiles on vehicles that pass by or park near ALPR cameras, allowing end-users to search for and review location histories and potentially determine where a driver might be in the future. The lawsuit stresses that ALPR systems can be used for "nefarious purposes, such as to track and locate protestors, people attending religious events or persons with a particular immigration status." The complaint says that Motorola supplements these records with artificial intelligence tools capable of analyzing intel against more than 17 years-worth of data stored in its database to "flag a vehicle of interest." Although Motorola Solutions uses data from its ALPR system for its own commercial purposes, the filing relays, the defendant also makes the system available to law enforcement and commercial customers, despite "newsworthy" security lapses that, in one January 2025 instance, allowed video and data streams from the ALPR cameras to be viewed without any login credentials. According to the lawsuit, Motorola's high-speed ALPR cameras can capture a wide range of identifiable vehicle information, such as make, model, license plate numbers, images of riders within a vehicle, and the GPS coordinates paired with precise dates and times. Per the suit, the cameras can work at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour and in the dark, and the ALPR operates indiscriminately, capturing images of any vehicle that passes by its cameras. The case relays that the California Civil Code imposes strict regulations on both system operators and end-users—or those granted access to the ALPR database—to protect consumers' privacy rights. Among other responsibilities, ALPR system operators and end-users must maintain reasonable security procedures and publish online privacy policies that clearly describe how data is collected, the parties with access to it, and how long it is retained, the suit describes. The class action lawsuit argues that Motorola, as an operator and end-user, has failed to comply with these requirements as it does not maintain a legally sufficient privacy policy that is conspicuously available to the public. The complaint points to multiple instances that demonstrate Motorola's alleged failure to follow the California ALPR law. In June 2024, the suit says, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency issued an advisory over vulnerabilities in Motorola's systems that "could allow an attacker to tamper with the device" and access collected data. The suit also alleges that an independent security researcher discovered in January 2025 that it was possible for unauthorized parties to view real-time data from Motorola's ALPR systems on the open internet. The lawsuit takes specific issue with the ALPR system deployed near the entrance of the University of California, Merced, which allegedly records vehicular data of both cars entering the campus and cars that merely drive by or park near the system's cameras. Recently, it was revealed in April 2026 that the UC Merced Police Department had been sharing ALPR data with several federal agencies, including Customs and Border Patrol, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the United States Secret Service, the class action lawsuit states. The Motorola Solutions ALPR class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States whose license plate number or other identifying information was captured by Motorola through its California ALPR cameras during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] NELSON UNIVERSITY: 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 Nelson University 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 Nelson University data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Nelson University Security Incident: What Happened? Nelson University, located in Waxahachie, Texas, has reported a data breach affecting 21,905 Texas residents. A sample notification letter states that Nelson University's IT team identified possible unauthorized access to its network on or about April 6, 2025. An investigation conducted with cybersecurity experts determined that an unauthorized actor accessed the systems from on or around March 21 to April 6, 2025. On or around May 26, 2026, an investigation and document review determined whose information was contained in the files that may have been viewed or obtained during the Nelson University data breach. The report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office states that names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, financial information, and medical information were among the data compromised. Nelson University is notifying those impacted by mail. What You Can Do After the Nelson University Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Nelson University 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 Nelson University 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] P&V CONSTRUCTION: Villatoro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT ------------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR VILLATORO and RONAL URQUILLA, residents of Washington D.C., and Prince George's County, respectively, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. P&V Construction, LLC, ELI ISMARIO PEREZ VALDEZ, and ALLIANCE EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-02314-TDC (D. Md., June 9, 2026) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act. Defendant Alliance was the general contractor responsible for a construction project at Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County (the "Project"). Plaintiffs Villatoro and Urquilla worked as construction workers on the Project from approximately February 2025 through March 2026 and from July 2025 through March 2026, respectively. The complaint alleges that throughout their tenure on the Project, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were paid less than the hourly rates guaranteed to them under the Maryland state prevailing wage rates applicable to this project. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals worked in excess of 40 hours per week on the Project, but were compensated at the same hourly rate for all their work, and were not paid at the time and a half overtime rate for such overtime work, says the suit. P&V Construction, LLC is a general contracting firm focused on wall panel installation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 (202) 899-2991 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com rnadas@hfajustice.com - and - Samantha Braver, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 843-9181 E-mail: sbraver@hfajustice.com PUNTO ROJO: Faces Zapata Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- ONOFRE ZAPATA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. PUNTO ROJO BAKERY COFFEE & RESTAURANT II, CORP., PUNTO ROJO CAFE CORP., PUNTO ROJO RESTAURANT & BAKERY CORP., PUNTO ROJO RESTAURANT & PANADERIA COLOMBIANA CORP IV, RESTAURANT & PANADERIA PUNTO ROJO INC. and JOSE GARCIA MUNOZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03450 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willingly operated their business with a policy of not paying the New York State minimum wage, and the proper overtime rate thereof for all hours worked to Plaintiff, and Class members, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. Plaintiff Zapata was hired by the Defendants to work as a baker at Defendants' bakery located in Hicksville, New York from January 20, 2026 until February 2026. The Defendants are a chain of bakery/restaurants located in Hicksville, Freeport, Uniondale and Jamaica New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC 426 Main St, #201 Spotswood, NJ, 08884 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Sued for Discontinuing Women's Rugby Team ---------------------------------------------------------------- REAGAN PEREZ, CAROLYN MELODY, ANASTASIA BYRNE, GEORGIA BROWN, REGAN JACKSON, MACEY DUNN, BROOKE HARNISCH, DELILAH STABERG, MEILIN LEMIS, GRACE HINTON, ALEXA KIRSCHNER, EMMA PEREZ, MORGAN SAYLORS, AVA DECOOPER WRIDE, SAMANTHA AGOSTIN, MELANIE SANCHEZ, ANNA WRIGHT, LAYLA COX, MCKENZIE KROEGER, AVA THAYER, SORYAH HART, EMILY HARTMAN, and CASSY LEWANDOWSKI, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MARIE HARDIN, and GREG AMODIO, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00898 (D. Conn., June 5, 2026) is an action based on alleged violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 by Quinnipiac University, its Director of Athletics, President, and Board of Trustees. On April 14, 2026, just two weeks before the end of classes and the beginning of final examinations, QU, through its administration and athletic leadership, announced its decision to eliminate its women's rugby team effective at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year. According to the complaint, the decision is particularly troubling because women's varsity rugby was one of the very programs QU expanded and relied upon following prior Title IX litigation concerning inequitable athletic participation opportunities for women. After years of representing the program as a cornerstone of QU athletics and celebrating its national success, the Defendants abruptly informed student athletes and coaches that the program would be terminated. The announcement blindsided the members of the women's rugby team, all of whom committed years of their academic, athletic, financial, and personal lives to QU and to one of the nation's premier Division I women's rugby programs. QU's women's rugby program has not only won national recognition but has also served as a pathway for Olympic-level athletic development, producing athletes who have brought extraordinary distinction and visibility to the University, adds the complaint. Accordingly, this action is brought by the female student athletes in their individual capacities and on behalf of all similarly situated present and future female student athletes at QU to address and remedy the university's historic and ongoing pattern of retaliatory and discriminatory conduct. The Plaintiffs are members of the women's varsity rugby team. Quinnipiac University is a private university located in Hamden, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine D. Brown, Esq. Ben LaCourse, Esq. CHRISTINE BROWN & PARTNERS, LLC 1700 East Putnam Avenue, Suite 400 Old Greenwich, CT 06870 Telephone: (203) 684-1834 E-mail: christine@christinebrownsportslaw.com ben@christinebrownsportslaw.com - and - Lori Bullock, Esq. BULLOCK LAW PLLC 309 E 5th St., Suite 202b Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 423-0551 E-mail: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com SEA BAGS: Sheffield Sues Over Deceptive Marketing E-mails --------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY SHEFFIELD, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEA BAGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-09123-0 (Wash. Super., Pierce Cty., June 8, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act, codified at chapter 190 of title 19 of the Revised Code of Washington, which prohibits transmitting a commercial email with false or misleading information in the subject line to the email address of a Washington resident. According to the complaint, Sea Bags spams Washington consumers, including Plaintiff, with commercial emails featuring subject lines which employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in consumers' minds -- and ultimately, from consumers' wallets. Through their deceptive time-sensitivity, Sea Bags falsely narrows the field -- steering consumers away from shopping for better deals -- to its own products that must be purchased "now." The Plaintiff challenges Sea Bags' harassment of Washington consumers with deceptive marketing for violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act for injuries caused, additionally seeking injunctive relief against such violations in the future. Sea Bags, LLC designs, manufactures, and sells tote bags and other accessories. It sells its products directly through its website, https://seabags.com/, as well as through retail storefronts located throughout the eastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, 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: sam@straussborrelli.com ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH: Melendez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Melendez, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. St. Joseph's Health, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph's Health, and St. Joseph's University Medical Center Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-07163 (D.N.J., June 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws. Plaintiff Lydia Melendez is an individual and a resident of Clifton, New Jersey. St. Joseph's Health, Inc., d/b/a St. Joseph's Health, is a Catholic healthcare system headquartered in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com Jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com mclark@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Protect Info, Pineda-Arellano Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE VIOLET PINEDA-ARELLANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC. and STRAYER UNIVERSITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01572 (E.D. Va., June 5, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendants' information network. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on or around February 2026, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected between February 23, 2026 and February 25, 2026. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations, and common law principles, notes the complaint. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit. Plaintiff Leslie Violet Pineda-Arellano is a former student of Defendants. Strategic Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company that, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, owns and operates Strayer University and Capella University.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan Scout Graham, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com STRATEGIC EDUCATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rognlien Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA ROGNLIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01619 (E.D. Va., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their highly sensitive PII to Defendant in order to receive Defendant's educational services. Between February 23, 2026 and February 25, 2026, an unauthorized actor accessed SEI's computer systems, compromising over 100,000 individuals' PII, including their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and passport numbers, which Defendant failed to discover until May 21, 2026 -- nearly three months later. However, in its Notice Letter, Defendant provided scant details about the Data Breach, failing to explain (1) how the Breach occurred; (2) what vulnerabilities were exploited; (3) how many individuals had their information compromised as a result of the Breach; or (4) the three-month delay in discovering the Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and (vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, says the suit. Plaintiff Samantha Rognlien is a former student of Defendant's school, Strayer University, and provided her PII to Defendant in exchange for receiving its educational services. Defendant Strategic Education, Inc. ("SEI") is an education services company that provides access to high-quality education through campus-based and online post-secondary education offerings, as well as through programs to develop job-ready skills for high-demand markets.[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 E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com E-mail: bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com UNITED EDUCATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Perkins Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SHARONA PERKINS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED EDUCATION INSTITUTE D/B/A UEI COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01448 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2026) is a class action arising from recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant requires prospective students, applicants, employees, and other individuals who are interested in its services to provide Defendant with sensitive data in Defendant's ordinary course of business. The private information Plaintiff and Class Members provided to Defendant, included but is not limited to names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's licenses or other government identifications, and other sensitive data. On May 29, 2026, the Defendant suffered a ransomware attack, causing the exfiltration of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their private information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and the Class for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) invasion of privacy; and (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, (vi) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, (vi) violation of the California Consumer Records Act, and (vii) violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services. United Education Institute d/b/a UEI College is a licensed and accredited institution of higher learning known as a career college.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9469 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Faces Class Suit Over Alumni Email Accounts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Metzger of Westworld reports that graduates of the University of Colorado Boulder were promised email addresses that last a lifetime. That lifetime is set to end this summer. CU Boulder plans to terminate its "Email for Life" program on August 31, deleting alumni colorado.edu accounts. The university attributed the decision to rising licensing costs, declining usage and security risks. "Maintaining alumni email accounts is no longer sustainable for the university," the February announcement reads. But some Buffs aren't letting go of their emails without a fight. Alumnus Rex Boge filed a class action lawsuit against the CU Board of Regents on Monday, June 15, arguing that the university is breaching its contract with former students. "'Email for Life' served as an explicit promise to alumni that they would retain access to their colorado.edu email accounts for their lives," reads the lawsuit filed in Denver County District Court. The "Email For Life" program was launched in 2005. Once it ends, new graduates will only get to keep their colorado.edu email for one year after they walk the stage. "The main reason CU Boulder decided to sunset the alumni email program is to protect our digital infrastructure amid a rapidly changing and increasingly volatile digital environment," says Nicole Cousins, a spokesperson for the university. "This decision is not unique to CU Boulder, as many of our peer institutions have already shifted away from similar alumni email programs." Other universities within the University of Colorado system still have "Email for Life" programs, including the University of Colorado Denver, University of Colorado Colorado Springs and University of Colorado Anschutz. But of 320,000 living CU Boulder alumni, only 7.5% logged on to colorado.edu in 2025, Colorado Public Radio reported in February. CU Boulder officials argue that the use rate doesn't justify the costs. Fees paid by former students The lawsuit argues that CU Boulder students paid for perpetual access to "Email for Life" via a mandatory $67.24 per semester "Student Computing Fee," which in part covered email-related expenses. "Generations of graduates paid their computing fees under the explicit promise of 'Email for Life,'" the lawsuit reads. "The university has offered no refunds for any portion of the computing fees paid. . . . Had [CU] made clear that it could or intended to eliminate 'Email for Life' at its discretion, [Boge] and the other class members would have paid substantially less than the amounts they paid for the computing fees." The lawsuit asks the court to order that CU Boulder fulfill its promise of lifetime email access, or to award damages to impacted alumni for breach of contract. Cousins declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the university has not yet been served. Boge, who now lives in Utah, holds two degrees from CU Boulder: a bachelor's degree from 2020 and a Juris Doctor degree from 2023. Before bringing legal action, Boge contacted CU Boulder leadership and members of the Board of Regents in an attempt to resolve the matter informally, the lawsuit alleges. His efforts were unfruitful. Boge is pursuing the lawsuit "reluctantly," it says, adding that he "continues to hold CU Boulder in high regard . . . but believes that enforcement of the promises at issue is important." He's not the first graduate to push back against CU over the decision. Another alumnus created a petition demanding recourse from the university. As of June 16, the petition has accumulated over 1,300 signatures. "I organized my digital life around the understanding that this address was permanent," the petition reads. "Many alumni have used their CU email addresses continuously for 10 to 20 years or more. Pulling that identity away now is not a neutral technical change. It is a breach of trust." One signer wrote, "Alumni shouldn't bear the cost of the university's lack of foresight." Another added, "For over $100,000 in tuition as an in-state student, keeping the servers active for my email shouldn't be what breaks the bank." [GN] UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS: Tremblay Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH TREMBLAY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01884-B (N.D. Tex., June 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the private information of its students, applicants, donors, faculty, and persons who have otherwise used Defendant's services, including the private information of Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant confirmed that an unauthorized actor gained access to certain systems between August 11, 2025, and August 20, 2025, and may have accessed some files without permission. On May 29, 2026, more than nine months after the data breach, the Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure. The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their private information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and/or view it. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. University of Dallas is a private, educational institution in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 D0allas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com URBAN ONE: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Suit for $675,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Urban One has agreed to a $675,000 settlement to conclude a class action lawsuit that alleged the media conglomerate failed to protect the sensitive information of current and former employees from a data breach discovered in March 2025. The $675,000 Urban One class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 30, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially compromised in the data breach discovered by Urban One in March 2025, including all who received notice of the incident. Court documents state that the class action settlement covers approximately 13,778 people. The court-approved website for the Urban One data breach settlement can be found at UrbanOneDataIncident.com. Urban One settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $10,000 for documented losses incurred between March 15, 2025 and August 31, 2026. This benefit covers losses arising from identity theft or fraud and the costs of credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. As part of this benefit, class members can receive compensation for up to 15 hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. The first four hours of the lost-time benefit cover tasks related to the data breach, including changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity and researching the breach, and class members must submit a brief description of how they spent that time to receive a payout. To receive a payout for any of the additional 11 hours, class members must submit proof, such as billing, bank statements or correspondence, that demonstrates the time was spent addressing tax-related issues caused by the Urban One data breach. Lost-time payouts are subject to the $10,000 documented-loss payout cap. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can instead file a claim to receive an alternative cash payment, with no proof required. The final value of each class member's payment will depend on the total number of claims filed and is subject to a cap of $500 per person. Finally, all class members can file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three years of CyEx Financial Shield Total, which includes three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. To file an Urban One 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 Urban One settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 31, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Urban One class action settlement following a hearing on September 25, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Urban One class action lawsuit alleged that the Maryland-based radio, television and media conglomerate failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to safeguard the private information in its care, which allegedly led to a data breach discovered on or around March 15, 2025. [GN] WHALECO INC: Klassen Files Suit Over TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------ Maria Klassen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. Whaleco, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00121-H (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2026) arises out of Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission regulations promulgated thereunder. The complaint relates that the Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound transmission reports for all telephone solicitations advertising/promoting its services and goods. On May 2, 2023, Defendant made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Defendant sent Plaintiff five marketing text messages before the hour of 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time at Plaintiff's location. The Plaintiff contends that she did not provide Defendant with prior express invitation or permission, whether written or otherwise, to send telemarketing or solicitation text messages to her cellular telephone number. Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the TCPA, and actual damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, arising from Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices, which intruded upon Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy and quiet enjoyment of their telephones. Plaintiff Maria Klassen utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. Defendant Whaleco, Inc. is a Boston Domestic Business Corporation authorized to do business in Texas and doing business as Temu, U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Ave Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Telephone: 305-506-4746 E-mail: vv@plgdamage.com WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBIE J. MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC; THE WHATABURGER EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Case No. 5:26-cv-03833 (W.D. Tex., June 16, 2026) challenges the Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Whataburger Employee Benefit Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, it is both unfair and unlawful for entities like Whataburger to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products without making available a reasonable alternative standard to avoid those surcharges. Tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but, to be lawful, plans must make available a compliant "wellness program" that provides employees with an avenue to avoid the surcharge. Making a compliant wellness program available means employers must adhere to strict rules set forth by ERISA and the implementing regulations established by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury over ten years ago in 2014, the suit says. The Defendants' Plan imposes a $17.31 per week tobacco surcharge (plus an additional $17.31 per week if a participant's spouse is also enrolled and a tobacco user) on every participant who attests to being a tobacco user and who enrolls in Plan medical coverage—approximately $900 per year penalty per tobacco user (and as much as approximately $1,800 per year for a participant whose spouse is also enrolled and a tobacco user) assessed solely on the basis of a health factor -- without making available or telling participants about a compliant alternative standard. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Whataburger, who paid a tobacco surcharge of $13.31 per week (roughly $900 annually) under the Plan. Whataburger exercises discretionary authority and control over the management and administration of the Plan, including the design, implementation, and communication of the tobacco surcharge, alleges the suit. Whataburger is an American regional fast food restaurant chain, headquartered and based in San Antonio, Texas,[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker D. Moller, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com XSOLIS INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Martinez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XSOLIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00791 (M.D. Tenn., June 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") including their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical treatment information from a foreseeable, preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving healthcare services from Defendant, Plaintiff was required to supply Defendant with his Private Information. On January 20, 2026, criminal hackers accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored therein, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members. On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff received Defendant's Notice Letter informing that his Private Information was impacted in the Data Breach. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) deprivation of value of their Private Information; (g) loss of privacy; (h) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach; and (i) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession, says the suit. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and for the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private Information in Defendant's possession; and (c) provide, at Defendant's own expense, all impacted Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff Fernando Martinez was a patient of Defendant. Defendant XSolis, Inc. is an artificial intelligence company that services patients and health care providers across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ********* 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 ***