260626.mbx

260626.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 26, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 127 Headlines 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Askins Says ACCENTURE PLC: Faces Consumer Class Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Rosen Suit Over Tariff Payment Refunds AMICUS SOLUTIONS: Rastelli Files Suit in D. South Carolina APEX COMPANIES: Fagan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APRIO LLP: Wins Denial of Class Status in Easement Tax Dispute ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hickey Says ASTRO SHAPES: Johnson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ATKINSON WATKINS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ATLANTIC INSTALLERS: Cabrera Suit Seeks OT Premium Under FLSA AZ & G INC: Wu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Diquinzio Says BASF CORPORATION: Diehl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BBBB BONDING: Must Oppose Benton Class Cert Bid by June 29 BEACHWAVER CO: Tanilli Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York BEIS LLC: Rossy Misleading Email Suit Removed to D. Md. BEVERLY RADIOLOGY: Vega Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California BHC SIERRA VISTA: Finley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BOBO'S FORDHAM: Gramajos Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BURBERRY LIMITED: Website Uses Illegal Tracking Software, Orr Says CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Wu Says CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hofmann Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Adams Sues Over Failure to Secure PII CHOICE HOTELS: Steinberg Balks at Use of Fragranced Products CLOUDFLARE INC: Kaul Suit Balks at Controller Recapitalization COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Caldwell Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Patterson Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Trimble Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri CORNERSTONE MASONRY: Ibarra Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA CREDIT PROS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Bradley Says DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES: Pesce Alleges Invasion of Privacy EL BUEN SABOR: Mejia Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages Under NYLL EMBECTA CORP: Grossman Faces Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ENDEAVOR HEALTH: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Torres Alleges EXPAND ENERGY: T&B Seeks to Recover Gas Royalty Underpayments GALLIANO MARINE: Cook Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Allen Class Suit Over Recall Repair Work HEWITT'S GARDEN: Conditional Class Cert Bid Extended to June 26 HEWITT'S GARDEN: Marzx Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid HOSPICE OF SAN JOAQUIN: Lelis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mikayelyan Says IROBOT CORP: Securities Fraud Claims Revived on Appeal in Premca J&H OIL: Czykoski Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Employees Under FLSA JMJ ENTERPRISES: Court Sets Trial Rules for Wage Class Claims JOSEPH ROYBAL: Kean Loses Class Cert Bid JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER: Thompson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida KALSHI INC: Smith Event Contract Trading Suit Removed to D. Mass. KEURING DR. PEPPER: Reining et al. Sue For Deceptive Product Labels KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT: Faces Casciani Suit Over Price-Fixing Scheme LANE BRYANT: "Smith" Remanded for Lack of Article III Standing LAVENDER LINGERIE: Faces Maxwell Suit Over Tariff-Related Fees MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cai Says MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Granados Says MAGELLAN HRSC INC: Ramsey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MAROLINA OUTDOOR INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MASTEC INC: Swingle Files Suit in S.D. Florida MATTEL INC: Faces Mannino Class Action Suit in C.D. Cal. MDL 2186: Heater-Cooler System Liability Row Transfered to M.D. Pa. MERCADIEN PC: Becker Files Suit in D. New Jersey MERCADIEN PC: Lowe Files Suit in D. New Jersey MERCADIEN PC: Pirone Files Suit in D. New Jersey MERCADIEN PC: Spitzer Files Suit in D. New Jersey MERCADIEN PC: Spitzer Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MICHAEL GOELLER: Osorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MICROSOFT CORP: St. Clair Shores P&F Sues Over Share Price Drop MINNESOTA: Residential Service Suit Seeks Declaratory Relief MOLLY MAID SPV LLC: McManus Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas MONSANTO COMPANY: Wins Remand After Objectors Held to Lack Standing MRF IMPROVEMENT: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MRS BPO LLC: Brennan Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NARA ORGANICS: Louis Sues Over Deceptive Infant Formula Marketing NATIONAL HEALTH: Brannon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NESPRESSO USA: Woods Suit Removed to C.D. California NEW YORK, NY: Bronx Defenders Sues Over Drug Testing Program NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kilmer Says NEXGRILL IND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE: Catalano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NOVO NORDISK: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Malamut Says NY RIVERSIDE GOURMET: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Wages PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Freitas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PAPA SIMI LLC: Breier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PENNEY OPCO: Venegas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California PERPLEXITY AI: Faces Gagleard Suit Over AI-Powered Engine Platform PHARMAVITE LLC: Spencer et al. Sue For Curcumin Capsule's Marketing PLAYA BOWLS BOCA: Diaz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Settlement Prelim Approval Filing Due July 1 QXO INC: Thompson Files Suit Over TopBuild Merger RAILPROS FIELD: Evans Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation RANGE NYC LLC: Barrett Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RANGE VIEW: Loses Renewed Bid to Compel Arbitration RAPID RESPONSE: Charles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA REDWIRE CORP: Court OK's Proposed Settlement in Lemen Suit REGAL LT ONLINE: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: Berry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REVLON CONSUMER: Eason Files Deodorant Mislabeling Class Suit RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Cornelllier Class Suit Over Gen Vehicles ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Illegal Sports Gambling Platform ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Unlawfully Operates Gambling Platform, Suit Says RUSSELL CELLULAR: Court Sets Aguilar-Vasquez Trial for October 2027 SAFE AND SECURE: Faces Bair Health Plan Suit Over ERISA Violations SHANTI Q SPA: Hou Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages SPARTANNASH ASSOCIATES: Boswell Sues Over Illegal Background Check ST. MARY OF NAZARETH: Buckner-el Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Byers Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Hartwell Says THURSDAY BOOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says TL CAPITAL: Dusza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA TRANSTEK INDUSTRIES: Collects TikTok Scores, Kirchner Alleges TREK BICYCLE: Wade Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Scheme TRIBAL HEALTH: Gibson Seeks Compensatory Damages for Lost Wages VANDERBILT CANAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges XSOLIS INC: Chu Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Mathews Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $10.2MM Against Vi-Jon in Talc Verdict ********* 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Askins Says ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA ASKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a ONE MEDICAL, Case No. 3:26-cv-06166 (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information1 and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class members from unauthorized access to its information systems in or around June 2026 and the compromise and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. On June 18, 2026, cybercriminal group ShinyHunters, engages in data theft and ransom schemes, including threatening to leak stolen sensitive information to coerce payment from victims. In the regular course of its for-profit business, the Defendant collects information from consumers and its Clients' employees and is fully aware of the sensitivity of the information that it collects and its obligation to maintain that information as confidential and safe from unauthorized access. Accordingly, the Private Information that the intruders targeted, accessed, and exfiltrated from Defendant’s systems included Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI directly or indirectly provided to One Medical in connection with the services it provides. The Plaintiff and Class members are current or former customers of Defendant or current or former employees of Defendant's Clients who directly or indirectly provided their Private Information to receive services from Defendant. The Defendant is a primary care practice with locations in nineteen major U.S. cities, as well as 24/7 virtual care, that works with more than 8,500 companies to provide medical benefits to their employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com ACCENTURE PLC: Faces Consumer Class Suit ---------------------------------------- Accenture plc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2026, that it is currently facing a putative consumer class action lawsuit related to a data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which was acquired by Marriott International, Inc. on September 23, 2016. On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in this putative class action filed by consumers of Marriott in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges negligence by the Company and seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys fees, and other related relief. Since 2009, the company has provided certain IT infrastructure outsourcing services to Starwood. On May 3, 2022, the court issued an order granting in part the plaintiffs motion for class certification, which the Company appealed. On August 17, 2023, the appeals court vacated the class certification and remanded the case to the district court for consideration of, among other things, the class action waiver signed by Starwood customer plaintiffs. On November 29, 2023, the district court reinstated the classes previously certified by the court in May 2022. The company appealed the district court's decision, and on June 3, 2025, the appeals court again reversed the class certification and declined to order another remand to the district court on those certification issues. In addition, a related shareholder derivative action was filed in connection with the same Starwood data security incident, naming certain current and former officers and directors of the Company as defendants and asserting claims on the company's behalf. The derivative complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and related misconduct arising out of the oversight of data security and risk management practices associated with the Starwood reservations database. The plaintiffs in the derivative action seek, among other things, corporate governance reforms, costs and attorneys fees, and other equitable and monetary relief for the benefit of the company. The company has moved to dismiss the derivative action, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to make a pre-suit demand on the board or adequately plead that such a demand would have been futile, and further contending that the complaint does not state a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duty or other alleged wrongdoing. That motion remains pending, and no schedule for discovery has been set. Accenture plc is a global professional services company providing strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations services across a broad range of industries. The company serves clients worldwide, helping them improve performance and create sustainable value for stakeholders. AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Rosen Suit Over Tariff Payment Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD ROSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01823 (W.D. Wash., May 28, 2026) seeks for damages and equitable relief on behalf of a nationwide class against Amazon.com, Inc. for: (1) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) constructive trust. The consumer protection class action arises out of Amazon's pass-through and pass-on of illegal tariffs and failure to keep the explicit promises it made to its customers. The Plaintiff seeks to compel Amazon to recompense Plaintiff and Class members for illegal tariffs paid by them, in full or in part, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and to compel Amazon to obtain a refund of tariff payments, which only Amazon, and not Plaintiff and Class members, can seek. Amazon.com, Inc. owns and operates online and physical stores that allow products to be sold both directly by Amazon and also by third-party sellers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sydney.thomas@hbsslaw.com - and - Dana Abelson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Dr. Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 E-mail: dana.abelson@hbsslaw.com - and - Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. Matthew Denn, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: ktucker@gelaw.com mdenn@gelaw.com - and - Thomas Walsh, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 E-mail: twalsh@gelaw.com AMICUS SOLUTIONS: Rastelli Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amicus Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Darlene Rastelli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Amicus Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Fedora Solutions also known as: Fedora Healthcare Solutions, Case No. 0:26-cv-02274-MGL (D.S.C., June 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Amicus Solutions -- https://amicusus.com/ -- specializes in providing efficient technology-oriented solutions to complex problems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. Karolan Furr Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN AND OHANESIAN PO Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: (843) 626-7193 Email: ohanesianlawfirm@cs.com APEX COMPANIES: Fagan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against APEX Companies, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Emmitt Fagan, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APEX Companies, LLC, Does 1 to 10, Case No. 26CV013919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Apex Companies -- https://apexcos.com/ -- is a consulting and engineering services firm specializing in water, environmental, H&S, compliance, and infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com APRIO LLP: Wins Denial of Class Status in Easement Tax Dispute -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Andrew Lechter, Sylvia Thompson, Lawson Thompson, Russell Dalba, and Kathryn Dalba, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aprio LLP (f/k/a Habif, Arogeti and Wynne LLP) and Robert Greenberger, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-1325-AT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a putative class action arising from a syndicated conservation easement tax strategy. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants Aprio LLP and Robert Greenberger facilitated a flawed tax-saving strategy known as the Syndicated Conservation Easement Strategy. Plaintiffs claimed they and a class of investors were persuaded to invest in limited liability entities, called Syndicates, that conveyed conservation easements to land trusts in exchange for charitable tax deductions. Plaintiffs alleged the appraisals underlying these deductions were artificially inflated, and that the IRS later disallowed the deductions, leaving investors to face audits, penalties, and other losses. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of investors who participated in any of fifty-three Syndicates for which Aprio prepared the donation-year partnership return and Schedule K-1 Forms, and which were subsequently audited by the IRS with adverse results. Plaintiffs asserted five claims: common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice, and violations of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Court first addressed standing, finding that the named Plaintiffs, who collectively invested in ten of the fifty-three Syndicates, adequately demonstrated standing to represent the full putative class. The Court relied on an IRS Promoter Penalty Report finding that Greenberger had been "fully immersed in the scheme" across forty-six Syndicates, along with Greenberger's deposition testimony describing a standardized return-preparation process. Turning to Rule 23, the Court found the proposed class ascertainable through Aprio's business records and numerous enough, given an estimated 750 to 1,500 investors, to satisfy the numerosity requirement. The predominance inquiry, however, proved fatal to every claim. On the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, the Court found that the named Plaintiffs received markedly different representations from Defendants and from non-defendant third parties before investing, and that their reliance on the Schedule K-1 Forms likewise varied. One named Plaintiff testified she did not rely on her K-1 amount when filing her own return. The Court noted that private placement memoranda issued to investors contained strong warnings urging independent due diligence, which meant the justifiable reliance element would require individualized inquiry into each investor's diligence. Accordingly, the Court found common evidence insufficient to establish either misrepresentation or justifiable reliance on a class-wide basis. On the Georgia RICO claim, the Court found that proximate cause likewise depended on individualized communications between each investor and Defendants or third parties, precluding class-wide proof. On the malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims, the Court found that Plaintiffs offered no common evidence establishing that putative class members were clients of Aprio or that a fiduciary relationship existed with each investor, again requiring individualized proof. Having found that predominance was not satisfied for any claim, the Court did not reach typicality, adequacy, or superiority, and denied the motion for class certification in its entirety. The Court separately confirmed it retained subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act over Plaintiffs' individual claims notwithstanding the denial of certification, citing Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, 841 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2016), and its progeny. The Court clarified that its ruling did not reflect a view on the merits of Plaintiffs' underlying allegations against Defendants, noting it remained possible that Defendants defrauded Plaintiffs and other investors. The Court directed the parties to file a joint status report within twenty days indicating whether they preferred mediation before a private mediator or a magistrate judge, and stated it was not inclined to entertain reconsideration of the certification ruling at this time. A copy of the Court's Order dated June 17,2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cxlk84 from PacerMonitor.com ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hickey Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA HICKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ASSETMARK, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-06136 (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident Defendant became aware of on May 15, 2026 (the Data Breach). Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) about its customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach. On May 15, 2026, the Defendant became aware that an unauthorized user obtained access to and downloaded files containing customer information. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that the PII exfiltrated in Defendant's Data Breach includes, at least: names and Social Security numbers. On June 11, 2026, Defendant began sending victims of the Data Breach Notice of Data Breach letters informing them that their PII was accessed and exfiltrated in the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential PII—which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a leading wealth management platform that serves over 10,000 financial advisors and over 300,000 investor households nationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com ASTRO SHAPES: Johnson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- NICKOLAS JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ASTRO SHAPES LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-01399 (N.D. Ohio, June 19, 2026) is a Collective Action Complaint against Astro for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees regularly arrived before the scheduled start of their shifts, engaged in mandatory pre-shift meetings and conversations necessary for them to relieve the outgoing shift, and began working. Instead, Defendant generally compensated them based on their scheduled shifts. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked, which resulted in unpaid overtime in weeks in which they worked 40 or more hours. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Struthers, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. He worked for the Defendant in the role of Extrusion Operator. The Defendant is a manufacturer, extruder, and distributor of aluminum and aluminum Defendant currently owns, operates, and/or manages four manufacturing facilities in Northeast Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com ATKINSON WATKINS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Mercedes Ruiz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ATKINSON WATKINS & HOFFMANN LLP, d/b/a BATTLE BORN INJURY LAWYERS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01810 (D. Nev., June 12, 2026), is brought for unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, restitution, statutory waiting-time penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS"), the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada common law. The Defendant systematically misclassified its legal support staff--including claims assistants, legal assistants, and paralegals--as exempt from overtime, paid them a flat salary regardless of the hours they actually worked, and thereby deprived them of overtime compensation, wages for each hour worked, and other wages due under state and federal law. Throughout her employment in 2023, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Yet because she was misclassified as exempt and paid on a salaried basis, Plaintiff never qualified for or received overtime pay. Among other things, Battle Born maintained a policy and practice of requiring its legal support staff, including Plaintiff, to work through their 30-minute unpaid meal periods. As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated support staff regularly worked at least 8.5 hours each workday--and more than 40 hours each workweek—without being relieved of all duties during their meal periods and without being compensated for that additional working time, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salaried Claims Assistant from on or about January 23, 2023, until on or about July 14, 2023 Atkinson Watkins & Hoffmann LLP is a Nevada personal injury law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Ciara Alagao, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Phone: 725.245.6056 Facsimile: 725.220.1802 Email: jason@rafiilaw.com ciara@rafiilaw.com ATLANTIC INSTALLERS: Cabrera Suit Seeks OT Premium Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- HELBERTH CABRERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. ATLANTIC INSTALLERS, LLC, and HERMES WILFREDO HERNANDEZ LEIVA, Case No. 1:26-cv-05195 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium, unpaid wages due to an impermissible policy of rounding, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In June 2025, the Plaintiff was hired to work as a laborer for Defendants. The Plaintiff's employment with Defendants terminated on or about October 2025. The Plaintiff further alleges that pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, he and others similarly situated are entitled to damages and fees and costs in this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information forms with the Internal Revenue Service. Atlantic Installation is a full-service company specializing in installing, maintaining, and repairing industrial storage equipment for warehouses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 AZ & G INC: Wu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AZ & G Inc., et al. The case is styled as Liangmei Wu, Shenghui Ren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AZ & G Inc. d/b/a NIKUSHOU SAKAI, Rachel Doe (last name unknown), Jane Lai (first name unknown), Case No. 717369/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial – Contract (Employment and Labor)." AZ & G Inc. doing business as NIKUSHOU SAKAI -- https://nikushousakai.com/ -- is a new Japanese yakiniku place.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yun Zhou, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, 10G Flushing, NY 10065 Phone: 718-353-8588 Email: yzhou@hanglaw.com BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Diquinzio Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SALVATORE DIQUINZIO and JARRETT LABATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING CO. and BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02699 (W.D. Tenn., June 17, 2026) is a class action against Barnhart for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information. On or about April 23, 2025, Defendant Barnhart determined that unauthorized outsiders had gained access to its information technology network. Defendant Barnhart failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring Barnhart to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future. On May 21, 2026 -- over a year after the Data Breach -- Barnhart disclosed to the Maine Attorney General that the PII of over 22,000 people was exposed by the Data Breach. Barnhart knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have provided their PII to Barnhart if they had known that Barnhart would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII was exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to Barnhart's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Salvatore Diquinzio is a resident of International Falls, Minnesota and a former Barnhart employee. Mr. Diquinzio recently received a letter from Barnhart disclosing that his PII was accessed in the course of the Data Breach. Barnhart is a company that specializes in lifting, heavy-rigging, and heavy hauling of major industrial components. Barnhart claims to be "one of the largest heavy lift and heavy transport organizations in North America with more than 70 locations and a reputation for solving problems."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell W. Lewis, IV, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Ave. S. Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 200-1122 E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: tmathews@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com BASF CORPORATION: Diehl Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Diehl, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BASF CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00681-UNA (D. Del., June 10, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Ohio law. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production/manufacturing employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but were not paid one-and-one half times their regular rates of pay for all overtime hours worked as a result of the Defendant's unlawful policy or practice. As a result of the Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice, the Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Greenville, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee The Defendant is a global chemical company that develops chemical solutions across six "segments": Chemicals, Materials, Industrial Solutions, Nutrition & Care, Surface Technologies, and Agricultural Solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com BBBB BONDING: Must Oppose Benton Class Cert Bid by June 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benton v. BBBB Bonding Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01294 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order granting the motion for extension of time in part as follows: The Defendants shall file their Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Certify Class by no later than June 29, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file his Reply thereto by no later than July 20, 2026. In addition, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the pending Motion to Certify Class is submitted without oral argument. Accordingly, the Motion Hearing set for Aug. 7, 2026 before District Judge Dena M. Coggins is vacated, to be reset at a later date if the court determines that oral argument is needed. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). BBBB is a commercial bail bond agency.[CC] BEACHWAVER CO: Tanilli Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Beachwaver Co. The case is styled as Maria Tanilli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Beachwaver Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-04992 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Beachwaver Co. -- https://beachwaver.com/ -- offers innovative, patented rotating curling irons designed for simple hair styling.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BEIS LLC: Rossy Misleading Email Suit Removed to D. Md. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEXIS ROSSY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-26-000664, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on May 28, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No. Case No. 1:26-cv-02119-JRR to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act in connection with its unlawful conduct of sending an email to Maryland residents with an allegedly false and misleading subject lines. Headquartered in California, Beis, LLC operates as an online retailer of luggage, bags, and travel accessories. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian Foster, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP 500 East Pratt Street, Suite 600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 539-1800 Facsimile: (410) 962-8758 E-mail: Brian.Foster@wilsonelser.com BEVERLY RADIOLOGY: Vega Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beverly Radiology Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laura Torres Vega, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals v. Beverly Radiology Medical Group, Inc., Continental Credit Control, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-03252 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Beverly Medical Radiology Group -- https://www.beverlyradiologymedicalgroup.com/ -- is a leading healthcare recruiter that specializes in medical staffing, physician recruiting, and healthcare jobs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com BHC SIERRA VISTA: Finley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as Devond Finley, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Sierra Vista Hospital, Case No. 26CV013912 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty." BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. doing business as Sierra Vista Hospital -- https://sierravistahospital.com/ -- is a Medicare-certified skilled nursing and behavioral health facility located in Highland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW #640, Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Email: dperry@masonllp.com BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Gardner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Gardner, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04993 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026), is brought for Defendant's violations of: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCRR"); the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday, as codified in the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "WTPA"). The Plaintiff regularly worked at least two additional hours per day, virtually every day of her employment, amounting to at least approximately fourteen hours per week, outside her scheduled shifts in exactly this manner. Her supervisor explicitly instructed her that she would not be paid for this time, and therefore she was not paid. Because Defendant applied this practice uniformly across its non-exempt commissioned sales associates, this action is brought as both an FLSA collective action and an NYLL class action to recover the unpaid overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a sales associate at the Bloomingdale's 59th Street location since 2019. Bloomingdale's is a well-known national department store retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 BOBO'S FORDHAM: Gramajos Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA GRAMAJOS, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. BOBO'S FORDHAM BRONX INC., BOBO’S COOP CITY INC., BOBO'S DYCKMAN SHERMAN INC., BOBO'S SOUNDVIEW BRONX INC., OCEANIC DELIGHTS GROUP INC., and ZU HUA WANG a/k/a BO WANG, Case No. 7:26-cv-05216 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid wages, due to the issuance of unsigned and/or dishonored checks; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was a resident of Bronx County, New York. Corporate Defendants own and operate Bobo's Crab Shack, a chain of seafood restaurants in the Bronx and Manhattan specializing in Louisiana-style seafood boils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Denisse Rodriguez Lopez, on behalf all similarly situated employees v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., Raymond Mueller, Yevgeny Fundler, Sharon John, Case No. 26CUB02259 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. -- https://www.buildabear.com/ -- is an American retailer headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DILANDO A PLC 801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com BURBERRY LIMITED: Website Uses Illegal Tracking Software, Orr Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SALLY ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. BURBERRY LIMITED, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05020 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for using or installing the TikTok Software on its Website www.burberry.com. The complaint relates that Burberry has been an active and pioneering advertiser on the TikTok social media and advertising platform since 2019. Burberry's paid campaigns on TikTok are designed to drive audiences to burberry.com. However, the Defendant installed, has used, and currently uses software owned by TikTok on the Website to collect and transmit to TikTok scores of data points about a visitor, her browser and her computer. The purpose of this software (the "TikTok Software") is to identify the visitor so that she can be targeted with marketing based on data about her. This is performed without visitors' consent or any court order, for Defendant's and TikTok's financial and commercial benefit, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on August 24, 2025 from a location in California. Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities when she landed on the Website. Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, Defendant deployed a de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using incoming electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. The same happened with an untold number of persons visiting the Website from California, says the suit. The complaint alleges that Defendant's invasion of the privacy of Plaintiff and Class members damaged them and they are therefore entitled to compensatory damages, which includes monetary damages. Plaintiff and Class members are entitled additionally to equitable relief in the form of enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful conduct, and disgorgement of profits earned by Defendant from its invasion of their privacy interests, adds the complaint Defendant Burberry Limited operates a website, located at www.burberry.com to sell luxury clothes and goods for delivery to individuals in California, and, more generally to market the brand Burberry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Robert Tauler, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 90 Broad St., Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 702-8670 (New York office) (213) 927-9270 (Main Office (L.A.)) E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com rtauler@taulersmith.com CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Wu Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PING WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC and PENNEY OPCO LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00668-ALM (E.D. Tex., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information (of their customers and/or employees, including, inter alia, their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, W-2 tax records, payroll information, government-issued IDs, and driver's licenses. According to the complaint, the Defendants experienced a data security incident at the hands of the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters, which, on June 12, 2026, claimed it had breached Defendants' systems, leading to the compromise of "hundreds of thousands of records containing PII." The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect their customers' and/or employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, the suit says. As a result of Defendants; inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy Defendants' failures and their consequences. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach. The Defendants own and/or operate the JCPenney businesses and stores, which include online retail as well as 643 physical retail locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, 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: calvarez@straussborrelli.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, 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 CATALYST BRANDS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hofmann Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHARI HOFMANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CATALYST BRANDS LLC and PENNEY OPCO LLC d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00665 (E.D. Tex., June 17, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of their current and former employees, which was entrusted to Defendants as a condition of employment. On or about June 12, 2026, the cybercriminal and data-extortion group known as "ShinyHunters" posted on its dark-web leak site that it had breached JCPenney "along with several other retail brands operating under Catalyst Brands and Authentic Brands Group," and had exfiltrated hundreds of thousands of records containing the highly sensitive personal and employment-related information of Defendants' current and former employees (the Data Breach). The Private Information compromised' in the Data Breach includes, but is not necessarily limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, W-2 tax records, payroll information, physical scans of government-issued identity documents, and driver's license numbers. The Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the dark web as a result of the Data Breach. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff and the other Class members are current and former employees of Defendants who, as a condition of their employment, entrusted Defendants with their extremely sensitive and highly valuable Private Information, which the Defendants acquired and maintained in the course of employing them. Catalyst is a retail holding company formed in 2025 through the merger of Sparc Group and JCPenney. It operates JCPenney and a portfolio of other retail apparel brands -- in partnership with Authentic Brands Group -- across approximately 1,800 stores, and reports approximately $9 billion in annual revenue. JCPenney is one of the largest department store chains in the United States, operating retail stores and an online platform that sell clothing, home goods, accessories, and related merchandise. Plaintiff and the other Class members are current and former employees of Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Adams Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Patsy Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00947 (D. Conn., June 12, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Personal Information") of its customers and/or employees, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers, phone types, plan information, as well as certain Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") data, including usage details, network data, billing information, and geographic data derived from Plaintiff's and Class Members' mobile devices. The Defendant Charter experienced a data security incident in April 2026, when the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters claimed it had breached Defendant's systems, leading to the compromise of approximately 13 million individuals' sensitive Personal Information (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its customers' and/or employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant also owed a duty to notify Plaintiff and Class Members as soon as reasonably possible about the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, despite possessing the financial resources and technological means to do so. Its misconduct includes failing to detect and prevent the Data Breach, failing to encrypt sensitive data, failing to adequately notify affected individuals in a timely manner, and not taking necessary steps to safeguard data post-breach. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy Defendant's failures and its consequences. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided, directly or indirectly, their PII to Defendant. Charter is a Stamford, Connecticut-based telecommunications company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com CHOICE HOTELS: Steinberg Balks at Use of Fragranced Products ------------------------------------------------------------ CHERYL STEINBERG and KATELYN DOUAY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., COMFORT INN & SUITES IRVINE SPECTRUM, and COMFORT SUITES SOUTH HAVEN NEAR I-96, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01388 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the False Advertising Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. 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 and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants' practices prohibit the chemically-sensitive disabled individuals the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Choice Hotels International, Inc. franchises hotels and maintains its facilities under a number of brands, including Comfort Inn, Comfort Inn & Suites, and Comfort Suites. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com CLOUDFLARE INC: Kaul Suit Balks at Controller Recapitalization -------------------------------------------------------------- MAYANK KAUL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of CLOUDFLARE, INC., v. CLOUDFLARE, INC., Case No. 2026-0810 (Del. Ch., June 19, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and similarly situated stockholders of Cloudflare, Inc., seeking to prevent the Company from effecting a fundamental transformation of the capital structure established in its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the Charter) by means of a conflicted controller recapitalization without the requisite stockholder vote. According to the complaint, Cloudflare's founders and controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn, are attempting to replace the Company's existing capital structure with a brand new one created for the express purpose of perpetuating their domination of the Company while enabling them to continue doing what they cannot do under Cloudflare's existing Charter without losing voting control -- sell off huge chunks of their existing equity stakes. To accomplish this Recapitalization, the Founders are attempting to bypass the Charter's supermajority vote requirement. The Company's current capital structure is governed by Article V of the Charter. Under Article X of the Charter, the Company cannot "amend or repeal, or adopt any [Charter] provision inconsistent with" Article V without the approval of "at least two-thirds" of the voting power at the Company (the "Supermajority Voting Requirement"). The entire purpose of the Supermajority Voting Requirement's "inconsistent with" language—and its plain meaning -- is to prohibit changes to Article V from being made indirectly, which is exactly what the Founders are trying to do in the Recapitalization. The Recapitalization attempts to install a "new capital structure" for the Company by (i) adopting a new Article XI in the Charter to define the rights of a 2 newly-created Class C common stock; (ii) splitting each share of the existing Class A common stock and Class B common stock into one share of Class A common stock or Class B common stock (as applicable) and one share of Class C common stock; and (iii) adopting a certificate of designations (which will become part of the Charter) that creates a new series of preferred stock to replace the Class B common stock provided for in Article V of the Charter. In other words, the Recapitalization attempts to avoid directly amending Article V of the Charter in order to evade Article X's Supermajority Voting Requirement. But Article X expressly covers new charter provisions "inconsistent" with Article V, and thus precludes the attempted workaround without a two-thirds vote. The Charter installed a capital structure that dictates exactly when and how voting control over the Company will pass to Cloudflare's unaffiliated stockholders. But under the Charter, the Company cannot overhaul its capital structure based on the mere approval of the Founders who would benefit from these drastic changes. Contrary to the Company's disclosures and intention to treat the outcome as a fait accompli, the Charter requires that the Recapitalization be approved by two-thirds of the Company's outstanding voting power, says the suit. Cloudflare, Inc., is an American technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. Stephen C. Childs, Esq. PURCELL & LEFKOWITZ LLP 600 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 400 Harrison, NY 10528 Telephone: (212) 725-1000 - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GERWITZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 - and – Neal C. Belgam, Esq. David A. Jenkins, Esq. Neal C. Belgam, Esq. Jason Z. Miller, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 652-8400 E-mail: daj@skjlaw.com ncb@skjlaw.com jzm@skjlaw.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Burge Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gayle Burge, Ana Lamaire, Natanya Pope, Norberto Claudio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-18908 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00916-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, PHV NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP - Dallas 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 855-8120 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Caldwell Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jim Caldwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-19056 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00921-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: ecf@laukaitislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Patterson Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Annabelle Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02570 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00924-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Javier Luis Merino, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM 825 Georges Road, Ste 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Phone: (201) 355-3440 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Trimble Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Melissa Trimble, Joanne Torkomian, Fatima Chaaban, Kathy Noble-Mayer, Marquintha Johnson, Lori Delariva, Billy Simpson, Suzanna Elich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-18969 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00919-JAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation -- https://www.cognizant.com/ -- is an American multinational information technology consulting and outsourcing company originally founded in India.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South Lasalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean Michael Topping, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3361 Email: sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com CORNERSTONE MASONRY: Ibarra Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE MASONRY, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00249 (E.D. Tex., June 19, 2026) is a class action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) individually and on behalf of all current and/or former employees of Defendant who were paid at the same rate of pay for all of the hours they worked during the past three years to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Defendant Cornerstone did not pay Plaintiff Ibarra for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. Cornerstone refers independent commercial and residential masonry contractors operating across North America (e.g., in California, Ohio, Georgia, and Saskatchewan).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street | Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1055 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net CREDIT PROS: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Bradley Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUBY BRADLEY and TIMOTHY DEVARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 9:26-cv-80734 (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2026) contends that TCP failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. In the regular course of its business, TCP collects, stores, and maintains the PII of its customers and is required to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to protect such information from unauthorized access and disclosure. On June 16, 2026, an unauthorized third party gained access to TCP's Salesforce environment and accessed and exfiltrated files containing the PII of its customers and employees (the Data Breach). Accordingly, TCP owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. TCP breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect customers' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure, or by contracting with companies that failed to do so. The Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. Plaintiff Bradley has already suffered actual misuse of her Private Information, including the appearance on her credit report of accounts she never opened, says the suit. TCP, a Florida limited liability company, operates as an online credit analysis and restoration service.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Valentina Rios Barboza, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 E-mail: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com vbarboza@brysonpllc.com lblanco@brysonpllc.com ajaramillo@brysonpllc.com DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES: Pesce Alleges Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------- OLIVIA PESCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMATOLOGISTS OF CENTRAL STATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06376 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Defendant has allegedly disregarded the privacy of its own patients by secretly intercepting patients' communications and disclosing them to an unknown third party, Google, LLC, without patient consent. Unbeknownst to patients, the Defendant secretly installed the Google Analytics cookie on the website, which discloses patient activity--in real time--to Google. Moreover, the Defendant disclosed its patients' protected health information and personally identifiable information to Google for targeted advertising purposes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks legal and equitable remedies as a result of Defendant's conduct. Headquartered in Blue Ash, OH, Dermatologists of Central States, LLC is an affiliation of dermatology practices operating in ten states across the country. The organization owns and operates the website, www.skincarectr.com, which allows patients to schedule an appointment for dermatological services [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646)-837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com EL BUEN SABOR: Mejia Suit Seeks Compensatory Damages Under NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- MARLENY DEL CARMEN SEVILLA MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EL BUEN SABOR CENTROAMERICANO CORP and GUSTAVO ADOLFO GONZALES TABORA, as an individual, Case No. 2:26-cv-03717 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026) seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages for unlawful labor practices under New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at EL BUEN SABOR CENTROAMERICANO CORP, located at 484 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, New York, from in or around February 2021 until in or around May 2026. El Buen Sabor serves Mexican and Central American Dishes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 EMBECTA CORP: Grossman Faces Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- HARRISON APITZ-GROSSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMBECTA CORP., DEVDATT KURDIKAR, and JACOB P. ELGUICZE, Case No. 2:26-cv-07217 (D.N.J., June 17, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Embecta common stock between November 25, 2025 to May 4, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information pertaining to Embecta's guidance for second quarter and full year 2026. The 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. 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 Embecta's fiscal results; pertinently, Embecta knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's guidance was misleading and unattainable. Embecta touted the Company's pen needle business as "incredibly resolute" mere weeks prior to missing expectations and cutting 2026 fiscal guidance. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Embecta's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. The truth emerged on May 5, 2026, when 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. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Embecta's revelation. The price of Embecta's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $9.25 per share on May 4, 2026, Embecta's stock price fell to $3.90 per share on May 5, 2026, a decline of over 57.8% in a single day, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff purchased Embecta common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Embecta is a medical device company. The Individual Defendants are officers the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com ENDEAVOR HEALTH: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENDEAVOR HEALTH, an Illinois nonprofit corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-06782 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (the "IMWL"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees are entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant has failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees have been entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees regularly work in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed with Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Environmental Service Technician. The Defendant is headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, and employs thousands of Hourly Employees throughout the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com EVERTEC GROUP: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Torres Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIBEL TORRES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERTEC GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-1371 (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 connection with the services Defendant provides, Defendant requires that Plaintiff and Class Members entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. 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 Maribel Torres is a resident and citizen of Naranjito, Puerto Rico. Defendant EverTec Group, LLC is a leading 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 - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com EXPAND ENERGY: T&B Seeks to Recover Gas Royalty Underpayments ------------------------------------------------------------- T&B NATURAL RESOURCE VENTURES, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability company, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION, an Oklahoma corporation formerly known as Chesapeake Energy Corporation, EXPAND APPALACHIA, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and EXPAND OPERATING, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00115-JPB (N.D. W.Va., June 8, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking recovery of statutory royalty underpayments, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, an accounting to the extent necessary, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and all other relief permitted by law. Expand Energy Corporation, formerly known as Chesapeake Energy Corporation, is an Oklahoma corporation authorized to conduct business in West Virginia. Expand Energy is engaged in the exploration, drilling, production, gathering, processing, transportation, marketing, and sale of natural gas and natural gas liquids in West Virginia. Plaintiff T&B is a West Virginia limited liability company that owns mineral interests in West Virginia. West Virginia Code authorizes the development of jointly owned oil and natural gas interests under specified circumstances while protecting nonconsenting cotenants and unknown or unlocatable interest owners. This action concerns Expand's uniform deduction of post-production expenses from statutory production royalties that West Virginia law requires to be paid on gross proceeds and free from post-production expenses. This case does not concern consenting cotenants who voluntarily executed leases and seek payment solely under negotiated lease terms. It concerns only the statutory production-royalty category created by West Virginia Code: nonconsenting cotenants who elected or were deemed to elect the production-royalty option, and unknown or unlocatable interest owners who are deemed by statute to receive that same production-royalty treatment, the complaint relates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank E. Simmerman, Jr., Esq. Chad L. Taylor, Esq. Frank E. Simmerman, III, Esq. SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC 254 East Main Street Clarksburg, WV 26301 Telephone: (304) 623-4900 E-mail: fes@simmermanlaw.com clt@simmermanlaw.com frank@simmermanlaw.com - and - Scott S. Segal, Esq. C. Edward Amos, II, Esq. Brian R. Bowen, Esq. SEGAL & AMOS, PLLC 810 Kanawha Blvd. E. Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-9100 Facsimile: (304) 344-9105 E-mail: scott.segal@segal-law.com edward.amos@segal-law.com brian.bowen@segal-law.com GALLIANO MARINE: Cook Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAMOM COOK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALLIANO MARINE SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01318 (E.D. La., June 19, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Cook was hired by Galliano in or around September of 2023, and he remains employed by Galliano through today. He was and is a cook aboard offshore vessels that carried third parties aboard, spending a significant portion of his time cooking for those third parties, though he also cooked for the crew. Consequently, his time spent cooking for third parties did not relate to the vessels' operation as a means of transportation. Mr. Cook brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated personnel aboard offshore vessels who did not navigate those vessels or contribute to those vessels' navigation and who, due to Galliano's misclassification, were not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks, in violation of the FLSA. Galliano is a maritime company and the employer of various people on vessels, and the payroll employer of individuals like Mr. Cook, who serve in roles on offshore vessels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cayce Peterson, Esq. Jeff Green, Esq. JJC Law LLC 3914 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com - and - Harry E. Morse, Esq. Martin S. Bohman, Esq. 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2050 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4009 Facsimile: (888) 217-2744 E-mail: harry@bohmanmorse.com martin@bohmanmorse.com - and - Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Esq. THE MAHONE FIRM LLC 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd, Ste 810 Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 564-7342 Facsimile: (504) 617-6474 E-mail: Mike@MahoneFirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Allen Class Suit Over Recall Repair Work -------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-06691 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2026) is a class action on behalf of GM-franchised new motor vehicle dealers in California to recover damages for GM's systematic failure to compensate its franchised dealers at the rates required by California law for warranty and recall repair work. According to the complaint, GM has ignored or subverted the California Vehicle Code to avoid paying dealers their due. Indeed, for many years, GM did not pay its dealers any retail markup at all on a host of high-value parts, most notably lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. Instead of a percentage-of the-part markup -- as required by law -- GM imposed "no cost" "Exchange Programs" through which it paid dealers only a flat, administrative handling fee that fell far below the dealer's retail parts rate. This blatant, facial violation of Section 3065 -- referred as the "No Cost Scheme" -- cost dealers (including Plaintiff) a lot of money. The cost to replace a lithium-ion battery for a typical electric vehicle (EV), for example, typically ranges between $10,000 to $20,000 (and in some cases even higher). Again, using Plaintiff's retail rate markup of 83.12% on a $15,000 battery, a GM dealer would be entitled to $12,468 above cost under Section 3065, says the suit. Yet, under GM's Exchange Programs, GM dealers received a flat EV battery "handling fee" of just $1,120 -- less than 10% of the total the dealer was actually due. Unsurprisingly, many dealers complained, and in 2024 GM abandoned the flat-fee approach in a tacit admission of the program's illegality. Unfortunately, the practice that replaced it was no better for the dealers, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff operated a GM-franchised dealership authorized to sell and service GM vehicles under the Chevrolet brand name until October 28, 2025, when Plaintiff sold substantially all of its assets to another Chevrolet dealer. The Defendant is a global automobile manufacturer and dealership franchisor that designs, engineers, and manufactures vehicles under the brand names Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin R. Budner, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: kbudner@lchb.com HEWITT'S GARDEN: Conditional Class Cert Bid Extended to June 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marx v. Hewitt's Garden Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 15, 2026), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order Granting the Letter Request for a third extension of time to file Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion and for an extension to the mediator selection deadline. The Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion is now due on or before June 26, 2026. The deadline for Mediator Selection is now June 26, 2026. The Suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is an independent garden center.[CC] HEWITT'S GARDEN: Marzx Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marx, Patricia v. Hewitt's Garden Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073-AJB-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that both the deadline to file the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and the deadline for mediator selection be extended to June 26, 2026. The Plaintiff's counsel was out of the office last week due to a death in the family and, upon returning, learned that counsel for the Defendant is out of the office this week. Despite these circumstances, the parties have continued to communicate regarding ongoing settlement negotiations. The parties have been engaged in active settlement discussions and require additional time to confer on mediator selection. An extension of the mediator selection deadline to June 26, 2026 would not affect the Court-ordered deadline for completion of mediation on Aug. 20, 2026. The Defendant is an independent garden center. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LigFAL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq. HARDING MAZZOTTI LLP 1 Wall St. Albany, NY 12205-3827 Telephone: (518) 556-3402 E-mail: Kelly.Magnuson@1800law1010.com HOSPICE OF SAN JOAQUIN: Lelis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hospice of San Joaquin. The case is styled as Alvin Lelis, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hospice of San Joaquin, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0005596 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hospice of San Joaquin -- https://www.hospicesj.org/ -- provide comprehensive and compassionate medical care, counseling and support to terminally ill patients and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Mankin, Esq. LAUBY MANKIN LAUBY LLP 5198 Arlington Ave Pmb 513 Riverside, CA 92504-2603 Phone: 951-320-1444 Fax: 951-320-1445 Email: brian@lmlfirm.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mikayelyan Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tigran Mikayelyan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00566 (D. Utah, June 19, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to implement and maintain reasonable and appropriate data privacy and security measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information from cyber-attacks that Defendant should have anticipated and guarded against. According to the complaint, Canvas collects, obtains, and records information on its users, including names, social security numbers, emails, locations, video recordings, student ID numbers, and other personal information, along with data on student performance and records of student messages (PII). Instructure failed to protect information belonging to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Instructure failed to adopt reasonable security procedures and practices that would keep user information private, including information belonging to minors, says the suit. Instructure is an educational technology company that sells educational software products, including learning management software, to educational institutions. One of the software products that Instructure offers to institutions is Canvas. Canvas is a platform used by tens of millions of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. These users include children in grades K-12, as well as college students. For many students, parents, teachers, and administrators, use of Canvas is required to enroll in courses, participate in classroom discussions, and manage learning. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Nationwide Class alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Tigran Mikayelyan is a resident of California who is currently attending Pasadena Community College. He enrolled at the college on June 23, 2025 and anticipates graduating in 2029. He was required to use Canvas by Pasadena. The Defendant is a public company that sells learning management software to institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Steele, Esq. SUMSION STEELE CRANDALL 2150 S 1300 East Suite 300 Salt Lake City, UTAH 84106 E-mail: dan@sumsionsteele.com IROBOT CORP: Securities Fraud Claims Revived on Appeal in Premca ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of PREMCA EXTRA INCOME FUND LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, DYLAN DAS, Plaintiff, v. COLIN M. ANGLE; JULIE ZEILER, Defendants, Appellees, IROBOT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 25-1192 (1st Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In August 2022, Amazon, Inc., the online retailer, and iRobot, Inc., a robotics company best known for inventing a popular robot vacuum cleaner called the Roomba, announced their intention to merge. Over the next approximately eighteen months, Amazon and iRobot sought clearance for the merger from domestic and international antitrust regulators. In January 2024, when approval from United States and European Union authorities seemed doubtful, Amazon and iRobot terminated their merger attempt. Following the abandoned merger, iRobot shareholders, led by Premca, brought a securities fraud class action against iRobot, Colin Angle, iRobot's CEO, and Julie Zeiler, iRobot's CFO. Premca's amended complaint seeks recovery against all the Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, which was promulgated pursuant to the Act. The amended complaint also includes a claim against Individual Defendants, Angle and Zeiler, as "controlling persons" under Section 20(a) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. Section 78t. The amended complaint essentially alleges that during the class period -- February 13, 2023, through January 29, 2024 -- the Defendants made numerous misleading statements and omitted material information regarding Amazon's cooperation with regulators and the status of the regulatory approval process. After Premca filed an amended complaint, the Defendants moved to dismiss it for failing to state a claim, arguing that it neither identified a statement that contained an actionable material misrepresentation or omission nor adequately alleged scienter. The district court agreed on both fronts and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It granted the motion on the Section 10(b) claim, concluding that the amended complaint contained insufficient factual support for the fraud allegations and inadequate allegations of scienter. The court then dismissed the Section 20(a) claim because it was derivative of the Section 10(b) claim. Premca timely appealed. After oral argument, iRobot entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which resulted in a temporary stay of the appeal. During the stay, the parties jointly requested to dismiss iRobot from the appeal but to have the appeal proceed with respect to the Individual Defendants. The First Circuit granted that request. It now concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the amended complaint for all statements identified by Premca except for the August 24, 2023, modified proxy statement. As it explained, the amended complaint plausibly alleges that an opinion expressed in iRobot's modified proxy statement--namely, that the company expected regulatory approval for the merger--is actionable because it omitted important contrary information about European approval in circumstances that adequately suggest scienter. For these reasons, the First Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims based on the predictions of regulatory approval contained in the August 2023 modified proxy statement. It otherwise affirmed the district court's order. The case is remanded for further proceedings. No costs are awarded. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/rUKgNteUr. Christopher P. T. Tourek -- ctourek@pomlaw.com -- with whom Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Genc Arifi -- garifi@pomlaw.com -- and Pomerantz LLP were on brief, for appellant. Alisha Q. Nanda -- Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com -- with whom James R. Carroll -- James.Carroll@skadden.com -- Rene H. DuBois -- rene.dubois@skadden.com -- and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP were on brief, for appellees. J&H OIL: Czykoski Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Employees Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DORTHY CZYKOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J&H OIL COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, and EXIT 76 CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-01881 (W.D. Mich., June 17, 2026) arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid their Hourly Employees at varying hourly rates. The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $14.50. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendants incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their compensation structure, including, but not limited to, shift differential pay and bonus pay. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, she and Defendants' Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay, bonus pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, the Defendants' Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of cashier at Defendants' J&H Family Store location in Gaylord, Michigan. J&H operates convenience stores across Michigan, including the cities of Howard City, Gaylord, and Muskegon, under the J&H Family Stores brand. Exit 76 is a subsidiary of Defendant J&H. The Defendants employ hundreds of Hourly Employees at their locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com JMJ ENTERPRISES: Court Sets Trial Rules for Wage Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tiffany Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JMJ Enterprises, LLC, and Traci Johnson Martin, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-CV-506 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled that a second jury trial is required to determine class damages under North Carolina wage and hour law, rejecting the plaintiff's request that the court calculate those damages itself. A jury previously found that the defendants violated state and federal wage and hour laws by underpaying workers at group homes the defendants operate. The jury awarded damages to opt-in members of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective, while damages for the Rule 23 class injured by the state law violations were bifurcated for later resolution. The plaintiff asked the court to review payroll data summaries and increase the documented shortfall by a fixed percentage to calculate class damages. The defendants countered that class damages must go to a jury. The court agreed with the defendants. It explained that the Seventh Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial and prohibits re-examination of facts a jury has found. The first jury did not simply apply a fixed multiplier to the payroll summaries; it sometimes awarded more than the summaries suggested and sometimes awarded less, reflecting consideration of representative testimony alongside the documentary evidence. Adopting a formula now would replace the jury's own methodology, the result the Seventh Amendment forbids. The court found that the first jury's verdict establishes that each class member was injured and is therefore entitled to at least nominal damages. A second jury will determine the compensatory damages each class member may recover under North Carolina General Statute Section 95-25.22(a), following the same approach used for the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs: classwide summary evidence of payroll records supplemented by representative testimony. The court considered and rejected other options. Individual trials for the nearly one hundred class members would consume months of court time on largely duplicative evidence. Bellwether trials were unlikely to move settlement positions, since the first jury's FLSA findings had not done so. Decertifying the class and leaving members to sue individually was impractical, since many claims involve less than $500, and would let the defendants avoid accountability for violations a jury already found. Neither party proposed binding arbitration, a bench trial, or referral to a special master, so those options remained unavailable absent agreement. The court determined that the second trial should take no more than three days, since liability is not at issue and the first trial took only three days. The court also imposed several pretrial requirements to avoid problems that arose before and during the first trial. The parties must meet and confer on a Rule 1006 payroll summary and attempt to stipulate to its accuracy. The plaintiff must provide the defendants with an itemized list of damages sought for each class member, with the calculation method and reasons for any differences. The plaintiff may also pursue Requests for Admission on individual damages if she and defense counsel agree the process is workable. The parties must exchange witness and exhibit lists, deposition designations, proposed jury instructions, and a proposed verdict sheet by set deadlines running from August through September 2026, and must jointly propose trial dates between October 19, 2026, and January 29, 2027. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for damages to the extent that a jury trial was set for the class damages issue, denied the motion to the extent it sought judicial calculation of those damages, and directed the parties to comply with the case management deadlines without seeking extensions absent settlement or agreement to an alternative method of resolution. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 17, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0GhbbM from PacerMonitor.com JOSEPH ROYBAL: Kean Loses Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PATRICK KEAN, v. JOSEPH ROYBAL, Sheriff, JOHN-JANE DOES, Mailroom Staff, JOHN DOE, Proprietor, USPS, ex rel. Post Master Gen., Case No. 1:26-cv-00889-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Richard T. Gurley entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's motions to certify class are denied because a pro se plaintiff is not an adequate class representative for a putative class action. -- The Plaintiff's "Motion Declaring Intention . . ." and "Motion to Add Three New Defendants Due to New Information" are denied as necessary. -- The Plaintiff's "Motion in Opposition and Objection to Hon. Magistrate Richard T. Gurley's Minute Order of May 27, 2026" is denied and overruled. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJIszT at no extra charge.[CC] JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER: Thompson Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Debra Thompson, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jupiter Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 502026CA001003XXXAMB was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:26-cv-80704-DMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Jupiter Medical Center -- https://www.jupitermed.com/ -- is the leading destination for world-class health care in Palm Beach County and across the Treasure Coast region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Andrea Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 200 S Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4832 Email: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com KALSHI INC: Smith Event Contract Trading Suit Removed to D. Mass. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NICKOLAS SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KALSHI INC; KALSHIEX LLC; KALSHI KLEAR INC.; KALSHI KLEAR LLC; KALSHI TRADING LLC; SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP; SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLLP; and ROBINHOOD DERIVATIVES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2684CV01188, was removed from the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 28, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-12413 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a claim under the Massachusetts General Laws as well as a claim for unjust enrichment, to recover the alleged losses on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of Massachusetts consumers who purportedly used Robinhood's and Kalshi's websites and mobile apps to trade event contracts, a type of federally regulated derivatives contract. Kalshi, Inc. operates a federally registered exchange in the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Craig Waksler, Esq. Nicholas J. Schneider, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 2 International Place #1600 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 342-6890 Facsimile: (617) 342-6899 E-mail: CWaksler@eckertseamans.com nschneider@eckertseamans.com - and - Eugene Scalia, Esq. Jonathan C. Bond, Esq. Nick Harper, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Facsimile: (202) 530-9603 E-mail: EScalia@gibsondunn.com JBond@gibsondunn.com NHarper@gibsondunn.com KEURING DR. PEPPER: Reining et al. Sue For Deceptive Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Reining, Tracey Sarmento, Richard Loyd and Michael Lassiter individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Keuring Dr. Pepper Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00568 (E.D. Tex., May 28, 2027) arises from Defendant's deceptive marketing, labeling, and sale of single-serve K-Cup coffee pods. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of single-serve K-Cup coffee pods as "recyclable" is misleading because these K-Cup pods present recycling problems that ordinary consumers cannot solve at the point of purchase. The Plaintiffs also claims that many municipal recycling systems do not accept them, and even programs that accept some #5 polypropylene plastics do not necessarily accept K-Cup pods. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for breach of express of warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Burlington, MA, Keuring Dr. Pepper Inc. manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverages. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rusty M. Messer, Esq. 4626 Sherwood Common Blvd., Suite 302 Baton Rouge, LA 70816 Telephone: (225) 963-9638 Facsimile: (225) 384-6762 E-mail: rusty@bigriverlaw.com - and - Andre R. Belanger Esq. POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT: Faces Casciani Suit Over Price-Fixing Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL CASCIANI, PAOLA HARTMAN, and CRYSTAL TURNBOUGH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KNOWLEDGE SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a KALIBRATE, MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP., MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, 7-ELEVEN, INC., SPEEDWAY LLC, EG AMERICA, LLC, BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., TRAVEL CENTERS OF AMERICA INC., TA OPERATING LLC, TA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS LLC, WALMART INC., SAM'S WEST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, CIRCLE K STORES, INC., TMC FRANCHISE CORPORATION, ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. 2:26-cv-02211-CSK (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2026) seeks to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful combination and collusion, restore competition to California's retail fuel markets, and make California drivers whole by compensating them for the substantial overcharges. This conduct constitutes an unlawful trust -- a combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons to fix, control, or establish the price of a commodity. Specifically, the Gas Station Defendants have replaced independent, competitive pricing with a coordinated, automated mechanism that relies on sensitive competitor data and a conscious decision to ensure that prices remain artificially high. These acts represent a modern, digital iteration of traditional price-fixing and combination that California law expressly forbids, says the suit. For California drivers, the pain at the pump has reached a breaking point. While a global energy crisis and military conflict in Iran have pushed gasoline as high as $7.00 per gallon, Californians are being forced to pay surcharges that cannot be explained by crude oil costs, refining costs, environmental regulation, or taxes. Part of the cause of California's astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state's largest fuel retailers. This artificial surcharge inflicts a severe, daily financial toll on millions of Californians who rely on their vehicles for basic necessities, the suit says. Kalibrate is a driving force behind this new anticompetitive reality. Kalibrate provides the central nervous system for a conspiracy to extinguish retail price competition among gas stations: Kalibrate Fuel Pricing, an algorithmic, AI-based pricing system that connects directly to gas stations' pumps and signs. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing relies on the data of competing gas stations to coordinate high prices and wring more money from the pockets of consumers throughout the state. Plaintiff Joel Casciani is a resident and domiciliary of Chula Vista, California. Plaintiff Paola Hartman is a resident and domiciliary of Homeland, California. Plaintiff Crystal Turnbough is a resident and domiciliary of Marysville, Defendant Kalibrate is a subsidiary of the U.K.-incorporated Kalibrate Technologies Limited and conducts business in the United States on Kalibrate Technologies Limited's behalf. Kalibrate offers pricing and location analytics software for a broad range of industries including retail, restaurant, retail fuel, grocery, healthcare, education, banking, private equity, and franchising. Kalibrate contracts with customers to license its fuel pricing and location intelligence software at transportation fuel retail locations across California. Kalibrate is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan. Marathon Petroleum is a vertically integrated company spanning many levels of the fuel industry, from refineries to retail. Marathon Petroleum is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon LP is a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum, which is the sole partner in and owner of Marathon LP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Constantine P. Economides, Esq. Ryan Class, Esq. Michael B. Homer, Esq. DYNAMIS LLP 1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 985-2959 E-mail: ceconomides@dynamisllp.com rclass@dynamisllp.com mhomer@dynamisllp.com - and - Nicolas Stebinger, Esq. Shaoul Sussman, Esq. Paul Goodrich, Esq. Victoria Field, Esq. SIMONSEN SUSSMAN LLP 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 384-3130 E-mail: nicolas@simonsensussman.com shaoul@simonsensussman.com paul.goodrich@simonsensussman.com victoria.field@simonsensussman.com LANE BRYANT: "Smith" Remanded for Lack of Article III Standing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kimberly Smith and Anne Kellam, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lane Bryant Brands Opco LLC, Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-25-03766 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court did not address Defendant's pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Maryland state court, alleging that Defendant violated the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (MCEMA) by sending consumers emails with misleading subject lines that falsely suggested sales would end sooner than they actually did or failed to disclose conditions required to obtain discounts. Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. In opposing the motion, Plaintiffs raised the issue of their own Article III standing, prompting the Court to examine its subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court explained that a statutory violation alone does not establish injury in fact for standing purposes and that a plaintiff must show concrete harm. The Court noted that although the Fourth Circuit had previously found standing in another MCEMA case based on the legal interest the statute created, subsequent Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit decisions rejected that reasoning. The Court found that the complaint contained no allegations that Plaintiffs were misled by the emails or took any action in response, and that Plaintiffs sought only attorneys' fees and statutory damages rather than actual damages. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that its allegedly tortious conduct satisfied the standing inquiry, finding that the relevant question concerns the injury alleged, not the conduct itself. The Court therefore concluded that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and remanded the case to state court. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JUEcKt from PacerMonitor.com LAVENDER LINGERIE: Faces Maxwell Suit Over Tariff-Related Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- EBONIE MAXWELL, JESSICA GONZALEZ, YENTLE POTTS, and CHAKA THEUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LAVENDER LINGERIE, LLC, SAVAGE X, INC., SAVAGE X GC, LLC, and TECHSTYLE FASHION GROUP, Case No. 2:26-cv-06670 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2026) contends that SXF Parties policies concerning charging tariff-related fees and/or surcharges and expiring Credits have violated both state and federal law and unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of "Savage X Fenty" customers. According to the complaint, Robyn Rihanna Fenty -- known worldwide simply as "Rihanna" -- is a global icon. "Savage X Fenty," the lingerie brand/business that she founded in 2018, however, has not held up in the spotlight as well as the singer has performed. In late 2022, for example, "Rihanna's Savage X Fenty [agreed to] pay $1.2 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit waged against it for allegedly misleading consumers about its renewal practices and pricing." Unfortunately, the SXF Parties, which, collectively, operate and market "Savage X Fenty," have continued to engage in one impermissible act after another to deceitfully profit off of "Savage X Fenty" customers (both in stores and online), alleges the suit. Lavander Lingerie is a Delaware limited liability company that operates "Savage X Fenty." Savage X Fenty sells an assortment of lingerie, everyday basics, men's essentials, elevated sleep and loungewear.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Michael H. Sampson LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com mike@lcllp.com MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Cai Says ------------------------------------------------------- HENGGAO CAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SPORTS CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-05103 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) is a class action against MSGS for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information (PII). The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, MSGS has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite MSGS's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was, upon information and belief, compromised by a hacker using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' who posted on its dark-web extortion site, on or about June 12, 2026, that "over 26 million records containing [MSGS] customer PII and other internal corporate data was compromised" (the Data Breach). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept, says the suit. The Defendant has not issued any public statement acknowledging or explaining the incident and has not provided, and does not appear to have provided, any notice regarding the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who directly or indirectly provided Defendant with their Private Information. The Defendant is a sports entertainment company that, among other things, owns several sports teams, including the New York Knicks basketball team and New York Rangers hockey team.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Granados Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR GRANADOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-05138 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its recidivist disregard for consumer privacy and Madison Square Garden's complete and utter failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including but not limited to the information of up to 26 million consumers, including Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information (the Data Breach). According to the complaint, the Defendant has a tempestuous history with respect to data privacy. The Defendant is infamous for collecting biometric facial recognition data from each consumer which enters into the Arena. Despite a slew of lawsuits regarding this conduct, as well as consternation from privacy advocates and legislators in New York, the Arena -- at the direction of its owner James Dolan -- continues to collect biometric information from each visitor, the suit says. Additionally, this is not MSG's first major data breach, including a point-of-sale attack which compromised payment card for visitors to the Arena 2015-2016 and a more recent data breach from 2025 by the notorious hacking/cybercriminal organization Cl0p which exploited an Oracle Business Suite vulnerability to expose tens of thousands of names and Social Security numbers for former and current employees. And yet, Defendant continued to collect, retain, and otherwise use the personal information of consumers to create threat assessments and for other purposes despite showing it was clearly incapable of handling this sensitive data, alleges the suit. On June 16, 2026, the notorious cybercriminal organization called ShinyHunters announced their infiltration into MSG's computer networks. That same day, the following publication appeared on ShinyHunters' Data Leak Site (DLS) which contains over 42 GB of compressed data and over 26 million consumer records. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (also known as MSG Entertainment) is an American entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah Kane, Esq. KANE LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (267) 832-2657 E-mail: : noah@njconsumer.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Natalia Perez, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com MAGELLAN HRSC INC: Ramsey Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tashayla Ramsey, individually and and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01291 (W.D. Pa., June 12, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages. The Defendant instituted company-wide policies that failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members for all hours worked. As a result of not paying for all hours worked, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff and the Similarly Situated Workers substantial wages. Specifically, Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Similarly Situated Workers for the time spent logging into computer systems and opening required computer programs prior to the start of their scheduled shifts. Defendant's compensation policies violate the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff, to be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each hour worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly paid behavioral health call center employee from June 2023 to March 2024. The Defendant is a company that provides behavioral health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 215 486 0606 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com MAROLINA OUTDOOR INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marolina Outdoor Inc. d/b/a Huk Gear, Case No. 0:26-cv-02911 (D. Minn., June 10, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.huk.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 fishing performance apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, shorts, hoodies, dresses, outerwear, footwear, 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 MASTEC INC: Swingle Files Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MasTec, Inc. The case is styled as David Swingle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MasTec, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-24142-JB (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Mastec, Inc. -- https://investors.mastec.com/ -- is an American infrastructure engineering and construction company based in Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com MATTEL INC: Faces Mannino Class Action Suit in C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattel Inc, et al. The case is captioned as LAURA MANNINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATTEL INC. and AMERICAN GIRL BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-06669 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2026). Mattel is a global toy manufacturing and family entertainment company headquartered in El Segundo, California. Founded in 1945, it is the second-largest toy company in the world, renowned for iconic brands like Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price, American Girl, and UNO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW, APC 145 S Spring St; No. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 The Defendant is represented by: CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N Sacramento, CA 95833 MDL 2186: Heater-Cooler System Liability Row Transfered to M.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In case product liability litigation, "In re: Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System Products Liability Litigation (No. II)," Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases each from the District of Kansas to the Middle District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Karoline Mehalchick for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff Sarah Bickle and defendant Ben Swanson in two nearly identical actions each move to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred said actions to MDL No. 2186. Defendant LivaNova USA, Inc. opposes the motions to vacate. Like many of the already-centralized actions, the Bickle cases involve factual questions arising out of allegations that LivaNova’s Sorin 3T heater-cooler system contains defects that leave the device susceptible to bacterial colonization, resulting in some patients' exposure to nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) during surgery. In support of the motions to vacate, plaintiff and Mr. Swanson argue that the actions involve unique questions of fact because the 3T unit at issue was owned by LivaNova and used by University of Kansas Hospital and plaintiff alleges that the perfusionist, Mr. Swanson, failed to follow LivaNova's instructions for use in disinfecting and properly orienting the 3T device during surgery. Though there are some differences between the Bickle cases and those in the MDL, the actions are sufficiently similar to benefit from transfer. A full-text copy of the court's June 5, 2026 transfer order is available at https://tinyurl.com/29blv2lc MERCADIEN PC: Becker Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercadien, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Pam Becker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS, IRCO Community Federal Credit Union, Case No. 3:26-cv-07016 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Mercadien -- https://www.mercadien.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of accounting and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Lowe Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercadien, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Robert Lowe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS, Orrstwon Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Case No. 3:26-cv-07015 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Mercadien -- https://www.mercadien.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of accounting and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Pirone Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercadien, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Pirone, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS, SR Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-07054 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Mercadien -- https://www.mercadien.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of accounting and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Spitzer Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercadien, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Dennis Spitzer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS, Mid Penn Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-07020 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Mercadien -- https://www.mercadien.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of accounting and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Spitzer Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Spitzer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCADIEN, P.C., CPAS and MID PENN BANCORP, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-07023 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026), is brought against Defendant for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendants and/or one of the Defendants information network, including, without limitation, names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license/Government ID numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, usernames and passwords, IRS pin numbers, and/or payment card information (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants and/or one of the Defendants on October 9, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' and/or one of the Defendants' inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private Information. The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to install, follow and/or require co-Defendant to install and/or follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS is a private CPA firm with its principal place of business located in Hamilton, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Facsimile: (212) 986-1952 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Delgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Merchant of Tennis, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alexa Delgado a/k/a Fernanda Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Merchant of Tennis, Inc., Case No. 26STCV18154 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. -- https://www.merchantoftennis.com/ -- is a retail & online store specializing in Tennis, Pickleball, Squash & Badminton gear from leading brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com MICHAEL GOELLER: Osorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Elias Osorio and German Lazo on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL GOELLER, TROY LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. and TROY LAND DEVELOPERS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-03514 (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 Plaintiffs a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action. The Defendants have and operated under a decision, policy and plan, and under common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines and rules of willfully failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at one and one half times their regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and willfully failing to keep records required by the FLSA even though the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been and are entitled to overtime. At all relevant times, Defendants willfully, regularly and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at the required overtime rate of one and a half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff were employed by Defendants as construction workers, laborers, and landscapers. The Defendants s a construction company that also does masonry and landscaping work.[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 MICROSOFT CORP: St. Clair Shores P&F Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, SATYA NADELLA, AMY E. HOOD, JARED SPATARO, and RAJESH JHA, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02071 (W.D. Wash., June 12, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Microsoft common stock between May 1, 2025 and January 28, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Microsoft and certain of the Company's executive officers. The complaint notes that throughout the Class Period, defendants highlighted the purported success of Copilot and Microsoft's foray into AI development, claiming that Copilot offered best-in-class capabilities and enjoyed widespread and growing user adoption Defendants also downplayed concerns about the Company's AI investments and business dealings with LLM providers and other companies, claiming that Microsoft was well positioned to achieve suitable returns on its AI-related investments and emerge a key benefactor from AI technological advancements. As a result of these and similar statements, the price of Microsoft stock reached all-time highs of over $550 per share during the Class Period. However, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Microsoft common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Microsoft common stock by failing to disclose adverse facts. When defendants' prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct were disclosed and became apparent to the market, the price of Microsoft common stock declined significantly as the prior artificial inflation came out. As result of their purchases of Microsoft common stock during the Class Period, plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws, the complaint adds. Plaintiff City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System purchased Microsoft common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Defendant Microsoft is one of the largest technology conglomerates in the world. Defendants Nadella, Hood, Spataro, and Jha are collectively referred to herein as the "Individual Defendants" who were directly involved in the management and day-to-day operations of the Company at the highest levels and were privy to confidential proprietary information concerning the Company and its business, operations, services, partners, and present and future business prospects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3268 Telephone: 206/623-1900 E-mail: jfarris@kellerrorhback.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: 619/231-1058 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631/367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313/578-1200 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com MINNESOTA: Residential Service Suit Seeks Declaratory Relief ------------------------------------------------------------ MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTIAL SERVICE HOMES, and EVAN O'CONNOR, as guardian and next friend of SHAWN ENGMAN; and others similarly situated v. SHIREEN GANDHI, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and individually, Case No. 0:26-cv-03037 (D. Minn., June 22, 2026) is a class action complaint and request for injunctive and declaratory relief as follows: (1) Issue an Order certifying ENGMAN as class representative and his counsel as class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) Declare that DHS has failed to comply with its obligations to Class Plaintiff and Class Members under the Jensen settlement agreement, including its obligations under Minnesota statutes and rules implementing the Jensen settlement agreement; (3) Reappoint a monitor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to ensure DHS's ongoing compliance with the Jensen settlement agreement; (4) Permanently enjoin DHS from continuing its campaign to destroy FRS facilities; (5) Permanently enjoin DHS from continuing implementation or use of the "flat-rate system" and requiring that DHS return to the DWRS rate-setting system that existed prior to DHS's campaigns against AFC/FRS facilities, including restoring FRS eligibility for rate exceptions; and (6) Award Class Plaintiff and Class Members compensatory, consequential, and special damages in an exact amount to be determined at trial. The Plaintiff is a nonprofit business association representing adult-foster-care (AFC) and home- and community-based services (HCBS) providers in Minnesota. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES is an administrative agency of the State of Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Steck, Esq. 6160 Summit Drive North, Suite 220 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 E-mail: jason@jasonstecklaw.com Telephone: (763) 402-1829 MOLLY MAID SPV LLC: McManus Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Molly Maid SPV LLC. The case is styled as Nicyel McManus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Molly Maid SPV LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00710-O (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Molly Maid SPV LLC -- https://www.mollymaid.com/ -- is a residential home cleaning service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Wins Remand After Objectors Held to Lack Standing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Randall King, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, No. 4:26-CV-813 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the Defendant's and the Plaintiff's motions to remand the action to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs had filed a putative class action against Monsanto in state court seeking approval of a nationwide settlement of Roundup-related claims. Non-party objectors, calling themselves Objector Defendants, removed the action to federal court under Section 1332(d), claiming they were the true defendants since they alone opposed the settlement. The court held that Section 1441(a) authorizes removal only by the defendant or the defendants. The objectors were not defendants and had no basis to remove the case, so the court remanded the matter to state court. A copy of the Court's Opinion Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=srZv3C from PacerMonitor.com MRF IMPROVEMENT: Rivera Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- ROGER RIVERA, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MRF IMPROVEMENT HOMES, INC., and MARIO RODRIGUES FERREIRA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01418 (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Rivera as a nonexempt, full-time construction employee on two different time periods. The first period of employment spanning from approximately July of 2021 to July of 2023, or 2 years; and the second period of employment spanning from July 1, 2024 to January 30, 2026, or 1 year and 7 months. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was paid the same amount regardless of the number of hours worked. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, says the suit. Based in Duval County, Florida, MRF Improvement Homes, Inc. operates as a construction company specializing in home construction projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com MRS BPO LLC: Brennan Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The case is styled as Michael Brennan, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 0:26-cv-61663-MD (S.D. Fla., June 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of experience, technology, and compliance management processes powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance brand and reputation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com - and - Samuel Joseph Awad, Esq. 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (561) 379-9248 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com NARA ORGANICS: Louis Sues Over Deceptive Infant Formula Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ludgyna Louis and Ciasse Jarrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nara Organics, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05135 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Nara with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Nara Organics infant formula product throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the Products are contaminated with clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism. The Products contain clostridium botulinum which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. Infant botulism is of a potentially fatal illness that presents a serious threat to the health of infants, which occurs when clostridium botulinum spores are ingested and colonize the intestinal tract, producing botulinum neurotoxins in the immature gut of infants. Affected infants can present with some or all of the following signs and symptoms: constipation, poor feeding, ptosis (drooping eyelid), sluggish pupils, low muscle tone, difficulty sucking and swallowing, weak or altered cry, generalized weakness, respiratory difficulty, and possibly respiratory arrest or death, alleges the suit. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated expect that the infant baby formula products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause severe disease and even be life threatening. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiffs, the infant formula products they purchased contain clostridium botulinum. The Defendant is using a marketing and advertising campaign that omits from the packaging that the Products contain, or risk containing, clostridium botulinum. Knowing of the presence of clostridium botulinum is material to reasonable consumers. The presence of clostridium botulinum was solely within the possession of Defendant, and consumers could only obtain such information by conducting by sending the products off to a laboratory for extensive testing. This omission leads a reasonable consumer to believe they are not purchasing a product containing a known bacterium, such as clostridium botulinum, when in fact they are purchasing a product contaminated with clostridium botulinum, the suit further contends. The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Products throughout the United States. Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling of its Products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC Andreas E. Moffett 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205 No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com amoffett@laukaitislaw.com NATIONAL HEALTH: Brannon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Health Foundation. The case is styled as Dimitri P. Brannon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated employees v. National Health Foundation, Case No. 26STCV18428 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Health Foundation -- https://nationalhealthfoundation.org/ -- is a nonprofit that works within under-resourced Southern California communities to eliminate barriers to health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com NESPRESSO USA: Woods Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charisse Woods, Cody Villegas, Erin Weiler, and Juliet Shoham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01564661-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01487. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for alleged violations of California Civil Code, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the "Credit Card Act"). The Plaintiffs allege that, during in-store credit card transactions at Nespresso USA's California retail stores, Nespresso USA cashiers requested and recorded their and other customers' telephone numbers, allegedly in violation of the Credit Card Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Perlette Jura, Esq. Timothy Loose, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Email: pjura@gibsondunn.com tloose@gibsondunn.com NEW YORK, NY: Bronx Defenders Sues Over Drug Testing Program ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bronx Defenders, on its own behalf, and Plaintiff One and Plaintiff Two on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hon. Anne-Marie Jolly, Administrative Judge, New York City Family Court; John Doe, Deputy Administrative Judge, New York City Family Court; Eugene W. Hurley, Chief Clerk, New York City Family Court; and Ruth Whalen, First Deputy Chief Clerk, New York City Family Court; in their official administrative capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04875 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026) seeks to preserve the status quo for drug testing in New York City Family Court. According to the complaint, under the status quo, family court judges may issue warrants authorizing drug tests of parents upon probable cause, and the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) may propose drug testing as part of the State's suggested criteria for reunifying parents and children. Drug testing is an everyday aspect of family court proceedings under this procedural framework. This motion seeks to enjoin a separate courthouse drug testing program scheduled to begin in New York City Family Court on June 22, 2026. The program grants family court judges unfettered discretion to ask parents appearing in court to submit to on-the-spot drug testing. Parents who submit to testing will be required to urinate while a court employee watches. The reinstatement of courthouse drug testing thus poses a high risk of constitutional violations without serving any legitimate need. Instead, it creates a parallel system of suspicionless, coercive drug testing untethered from established legal standards or individualized findings, circumventing the process contemplated by state law, says the suit. The Plaintiffs request that this Court maintain the status quo by enjoining family court officials, in their administrative capacities, from implementing the courthouse drug testing program. Plaintiff The Bronx Defenders is a nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to New Yorkers every year on a wide range of matters, including family defense. Anne-Marie Jolly is sued in her official capacity as the Administrative Judge for New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trisha Trigilio, Esq. Anne Venhuizen, Esq. Jesse McGleughlin, Esq. Kyle Hogan, Esq. THE BRONX DEFENDERS 360 East 161st Street Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (347) 302-2797 E-mail: ttrigilio@bronxdefenders.org - and - Kathleen A. Reilly, Esq. Alexander Weaver, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-7450 Telephone: (212) 836 7450 E-mail: kathleen.reilly@arnoldporter.com NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kilmer Says -------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK KILMER and ELIZABETH SCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEWSBANK, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02044 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and health insurance information. On or before July 1, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a data breach involving its network, during which an unauthorized actor accessed certain files and data stored within Defendant's systems (the Data Breach). The Defendant determined that the unauthorized actor viewed or downloaded the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members. On or around August 26, 2024, reports began surfacing on the dark web that Defendant had been the subject of a cyberattack by the Rhysida ransomware group. On or around August 26, 2024, the Rhysida group published on the dark web unredacted Social Security numbers, Social Security cards, passports, driver's licenses, tax forms, confidential employee files, and photos that it acquired during the Data Breach. For some current or former employees, the published data included employment application packets with W2 tax forms, Social Security numbers, and banking and routing numbers for direct deposit. Accordingly, the Defendant admits that the exfiltrated information included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and health insurance information. The exposed PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiffs and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of (i) identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, and (ii) the sharing and detrimental use of their confidential medical information. The Defendant had a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members from involuntary disclosure to third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members provided and entrusted Defendant with sensitive and confidential information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and health insurance information. The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. They demand security to safeguard their PII. NewsBank is an electronic research database company founded in 1972 that aggregates current and historical news archives.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Florida Bar No. 99286 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-4023 Facsimile: (813) 222-4708 E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. No. 402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com NEXGRILL IND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05193 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.nexgrill.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on April 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a 4 Burner Liquid Propane Gas Grill With Side Burner and Charcoal Tray in Black from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a 4 Burner Liquid Propane Gas Grill With Side Burner and Charcoal Tray in Black, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: outdoor cooking equipment and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Nexgrill online retail store, as well as the Nexgrill interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE: Catalano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Catalano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC and ELITE NURSES MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01052-BBC (E.D. Wis., June 12, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from said employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendants, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Certified Nursing Assistant at Defendants' direction. North Shore Healthcare LLC owns, operates, and manages skilled nursing facilities and assisted living facilities in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com NOVO NORDISK: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Malamut Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLA MALAMUT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NOVO NORDISK, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-07400 (D.N.J., June 19, 2026) arises from a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. In its regular course of business operations, the Defendant collects and maintains a substantial amount of personally identifiable information and protected health information and has a resulting duty to ensure such information is safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. The Defendant recently identified an IT security incident involving unauthorized access to its IT Network.1 In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: Patient ID (random alphanumeric string) and information on trial participation, sex, date of birth, Biomarkers, Health/immunogenicity data, and lifestyle factors, e.g. smoking, alcohol use, BMI. The Defendant is the major United States subsidiary of the global Danish healthcare giant Novo Nordisk A/S. Founded in 1923, the company specializes in researching, developing, and manufacturing life-saving pharmaceutical products, primarily focusing on diabetes and obesity care, as well as rare blood and endocrine disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com NY RIVERSIDE GOURMET: Vasquez Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Fabian Vasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NY RIVERSIDE GOURMET DELI INC. (D/B/A RIVERSIDE GOURMET DELI), AND MOSA NAGI, Case No. 1:26-cv-05015 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker, stocker, sweeper and fruit salad preparer at the deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Deli/grocery, located in New York City under the name "Riverside Gourmet Deli."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Freitas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Seafood Sacramento, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Freitas, Tyree Bradford, individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Pacific Seafood Sacramento, LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 26CV014429 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Pacific Seafood -- https://www.pacificseafood.com/ -- is a family-owned company delivering the healthiest protein on the planet through a fully integrated seafood supply chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law PAPA SIMI LLC: Breier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa Simi, LLC. The case is styled as Alex Breier, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Papa Simi, LLC, Case No. 2026CUOE067878 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Papa Simi, LLC doing business as Papa Johns -- https://locations.papajohns.com/united-states/ca/93063/simi-valley/2202-tapo-street -- is an American pizza restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PENNEY OPCO: Venegas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penney OpCo LLC. The case is styled as Claudia Venegas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penney OpCo LLC d/b/a JCPenney, Case No. 5:26-cv-03266 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Penney OpCo LLC (JC Penney) -- https://www.jcpenney.com/ -- operates a chain of department stores that offers a portfolio of private and national brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: pamela@kazlg.com PERPLEXITY AI: Faces Gagleard Suit Over AI-Powered Engine Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY GAGLEARD and KAREN PICARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2026) seek, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert statutory and common law claims against perplexity: breach of contract; breach of express warranty; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act as a result of Perplexity's deceptive disregard of its express promises to its users thus violated its own Terms of Service. According to the complaint, Perplexity's Terms provided no warning to Plaintiffs and Class Members that Perplexity would unilaterally disregard the representations made to them regarding their account functionalities. On the contrary, the Terms explicitly promised Perplexity users that "any changes to your subscription plan will take effect following reasonable notice to you." Perplexity markets the Platform as a "free AI-powered answer engine for fast, trustworthy research" and boasts 45 million monthly active users. According to Perplexity's marketing, the Platform "uses advanced AI to search the internet in real-time, gathering insights from top-tier sources" to deliver "exactly what [users] need in an easy-to-understand, conversation tone." Perplexity allows anyone to use some of its services for free. However, if users want to access many of the product's advanced features, they must pay a monthly or yearly fee. For example, Perplexity claims its Perplexity Pro plan goes "far beyond standard keyword-based searches, functioning more like a knowledgeable search assistant than a traditional search engine." When an AI company makes a promise to its customers through binding contracts, the company cannot later decide to change those promises during the life of the contract. Yet, Perplexity has tried to do exactly that by entering into fixed-term contracts with its customers and dramatically decreasing the services provided to those customers midway through their contractual term, the suit says. Perplexity describes the Platform as "an answer engine built around real-time web search with inline citations on every response." To use the Platform, users enter a query into the Platform's search box and the Platform then provides a written response, including in-line citations to online resources. To produce these responses, Perplexity leverages leading LLMs including OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, amd Anthropic's Claude. PERPLEXITY AI, INC. is an artificial intelligence company founded in 2022 that operates an AI-powered search engine.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Ybarra, Esq. Sonjay Singh., Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 297-3807 E-mail: cybarra@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Spencer et al. Sue For Curcumin Capsule's Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN SPENCER, SHAUN PILON, DAMANY BROWNE, and LYNN GUENTHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situation, Plaintiffs v. PHARMAVITE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05135 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2026), seeks for damages and equitable relief against Pharmavite LLC for its (1) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, (2) violations of the California False Advertising Law, (3) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (4) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (5) violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, (6) violations of the New York False Advertising Law, (7) breach of express warranty, (8) breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The consumer protection class action arises from Defendant's manufacture, sale, and marketing of their Nature Made 500 mg Turmeric Curcumin Capsules. The Defendant advertises its Nature Made-brand Turmeric Capsules as providing "antioxidant benefits" that reduce "free radicals." However, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has created, oversaw, and authorized the unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and deceptive packaging and related marketing for the Turmeric Capsules that represented those products offered health benefits it did not, and did not disclose that the Turmeric Capsules did not contain absorption-enhancing additives necessary to provide the promised health benefits. Headquartered in West Hills, CA, Pharmavite LLC operates as a vitamin and supplement company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 Third Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 229-9720 E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com - and - Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: jsarnelli@gelaw.com - and - Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: ktucker@gelaw.com - and - Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com PLAYA BOWLS BOCA: Diaz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Francisco Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Playa Bowls Boca, LLC, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24157-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Playa Bowls -- https://playabowls.com/ -- is a franchise of healthy superfruit bowls, smoothies, juices, oatmeal, soup, and coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Eve Alexis Cann, Esq. BAKER DONELSON 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 768-1612 Email: ecann@bakerdonelson.com PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Settlement Prelim Approval Filing Due July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01086 (D. Colo., Filed April 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order on motion to certify class. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement on or before July 1, 2026. All other pending deadlines are stayed. Motion to certify class now moot. The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance. Progressive provides insurance services.[CC] QXO INC: Thompson Files Suit Over TopBuild Merger ------------------------------------------------- ANDREW THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QXO, INC., BRAD JACOBS, JASON AIKEN, MARLENE COLUCCI, MARIO HARIK, MARY KISSEL, JARED KUSHNER, and ALLISON LANDRY, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0757 (Del. Ch., June 8, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other public stockholders of QXO, Inc. against QXO and the members of QXO's Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Board's efforts to combine the Company with TopBuild Corp. On April 18, 2026, QXO and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Titanium MergerCo, Inc. and Titanium MergerCo 2, LLC ("Forward Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with TopBuild. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, QXO will acquire TopBuild in a cash and stock transaction valued at $17 billion. At the effective time of the merger, each share of TopBuild common stock will be converted into the right to receive, at the election of the holder, $505 in cash or 20.200 QXO shares, subject to proration such that the maximum number of TopBuild shares to be converted into the cash consideration is capped at 45% and the maximum number of TopBuild shares to be converted into the stock consideration is capped at 55% of the aggregate number of TopBuild shares issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the merger. On May 29, 2026, the Company filed a Form 424B3 Prospectus with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission to, among other things, recommend that QXO stockholders vote to approve the Share Issuance. However, the Prospectus fails to provide the Company's shareholders with material information rendering the shareholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the Share Issuance, says the suit. In facilitating the Proposed Transaction and disseminating the incomplete and misleading Prospectus, each of the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Share Issuance prior to the special meeting of stockholders to vote on the Share Issuance which is currently scheduled for June 29, 2026, unless or until the Board provides stockholders with all information necessary to cast an informed vote. QXO, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located at Five American Lane, Greenwich, Connecticut. The Company is a building products distribution company and is the largest publicly traded distributor of roofing, waterproofing and complementary building products in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq. ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC 53 Hill Street, Suite 152 Southampton, NY 11968 Telephone: (631) 204-6187 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr - Ste 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 E-mail: BDLong@LongLawDE.com RAILPROS FIELD: Evans Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Christian Evans and Jason Harris, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. RAILPROS FIELD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01965-D (N.D. Tex., June 13, 2026), is brought against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and all available damages, penalties and interest related thereto under the under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Consistent with Defendant's policy, pattern and/or practice, Plaintiffs and the putative Collective, Sub-Collective Members, and Class Members as Workers worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and/or hours triggering overtime premium payment obligations under the state laws, in one of more workweeks within the Relevant Time Period for their employer's benefit. The Defendant intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a policy, pattern, and practice of violating the FLSA and the IMWL and other state laws with respect to payment of Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and State Law Class Members. This policy, pattern, and practice includes, but it is not limited to, Defendant's knowledge of their obligations and the work covered by prevailing wage laws that Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and State Law Class Members were, and have been, performing. As a result, Defendant has willfully failed to pay overtime premiums for overtime hours worked at the correct rate required by the FLSA and state laws to Plaintiffs and members of the putative Collective and State Law Classes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by and permitted to work for Defendant on its contracted public works jobs. The Defendant is a corporation organized, incorporated, and existing under the laws of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com - and - C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Phone: (404) 924-4151 Fax: (404) 796-7338 Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com bhilbert@headlawfirm.com RANGE NYC LLC: Barrett Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tiana Barrett and Tadea Mikhail Miles, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. THE RANGE NYC LLC, d/b/a FIVE IRON GOLF, FIVE IRON GOLF NYC LLC d/b/a FIVE IRON GOLF, FIVE IRON GOLF FIDI LLC, FIVE IRON GOLF FLATIRON LLC, FIVE IRON GOLF FRANCHISING LLC, FIVE IRON GOLF LIC LLC, FIVE IRON GOLF ROCK LLC, FIVE IRON SEAPORT LLC, and FIVE IRON GOLF TRIBECA LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05004 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant failure to pay overtime wages and illegally retained these service charges. The Defendants charged customers service charges. The Defendants illegally retained these service charges in their entirety and did not distribute them to service employees. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff New York's spread of hours premium for workdays that lasted longer than 10 hours, which would have included virtually every shift Plaintiff worked. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff New York's Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday as required by New York Law. The required form would have included Plaintiff's overtime rate. If Plaintiff had such information, he would have raised with Defendants their failure to pay the overtime rate sooner. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff weekly paystubs containing his actual hours worked each week. If Plaintiff had such information, he would have sought redress for his unpaid wages sooner. The Defendants knowingly committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, FLSA = Collective members, and members of the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server at the Restaurant from September 2022 through May 2024. Aksaray, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates the restaurant known as Aksaray in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 RANGE VIEW: Loses Renewed Bid to Compel Arbitration --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CERRIDWEN AURANDT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RANGE VIEW MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a LENDVIA, BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:25-cv-05785-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order denying the Defendants' renewed motions to compel arbitration and to stay discovery because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the contract formation. Aurandt's motion for partial summary judgment is also denied, trhe Court says. Because the parties did not request a jury trial, the arbitrability question will be resolved in a summary bench trial. The parties shall file a joint status report outlining any additional discovery, a potential briefing schedule, and proposed dates for trial, within 14 days. In August 2025, Aurandt sued Defendants in Kitsap County Superior Court, alleging that she received unwanted solicitation phone calls from Defendants in violation of both federal and state telephone consumer protection laws, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Washington's Telephone Solicitation Act ("TSA") and Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The Defendants removed the case to this Court and moved to compel arbitration and to stay discovery, arguing that Aurandt consented to arbitrate her claims. The Defendants are financial services companies that market and offer personal loans through websites such as Lendvia.com. A copy of the Court's order dated June 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t87wnn at no extra charge.[CC] RAPID RESPONSE: Charles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUCKENSON CHARLES and JEAN BAPTISTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RAPID RESPONSE RESTORATION, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and DANIEL AMISHAY, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-24242 (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) is an action to recover from all Defendants unpaid wages, including statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, all under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Charles is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of 18, sui juris, and otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff Baptiste is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of 18, sui juris, and otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court. Rapid Response is a Florida for-profit limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 13001 NE 14th Ave., North Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. LEVINE FRANK PLLC 3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 544-8900 Facsimile: (561) 544-8999 E-Mail: drl@levinefrank.com REDWIRE CORP: Court OK's Proposed Settlement in Lemen Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Redwire Corp disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2026, that on August 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida approved the proposed settlement of a putative securities class action captioned "Jed Lemen v. Redwire Corporation," 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla.). During its pendency, the parties litigated a motion to dismiss. Following briefing and argument, the court denied the motion to dismiss in part, allowing certain claims to proceed. The class action as well as the requested fee award for the plaintiffs' counsel in that case. On April 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a verified amended shareholder derivative complaint. It alleged that the settling defendants are liable to Redwire for issuing a series of false and misleading statements that failed to disclose, among other things, that the company did not maintain effective internal controls or reporting systems concerning its compliance with accounting and finance policies and procedures and that, as a result, the settling defendants' statements about Redwire's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The settling parties stipulated to stay the derivative action until the then-anticipated motion to dismiss in the class action was resolved. On April 21, 2023, following the denial, in part, of the motion to dismiss in the class action, the Delaware Court, upon joint stipulation, further stayed the derivative action pending certain events in the class action, including an announcement that the parties to the class action agreed to settle. The procedural developments in the class action continued to affect the timing and management of the related derivative action. On November 14, 2024, following numerous conferences among the settling parties, the settling parties agreed, and the Delaware Court so ordered, the parties' stipulation to transfer the Derivative Action from the Delaware Court to the present court. On December 19, 2024, following the transfer, the court entered the parties' stipulated joint motion to stay the derivative action pending resolution of the settlement proceedings in the class action. Redwire Corp is a space infrastructure company focused on mission-critical solutions and components for space exploration, national security, and commercial space markets. The company provides advanced space technology, including satellite components, deployable structures, and engineering services to government and commercial customers. REGAL LT ONLINE: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL LT ONLINE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04506 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.lordandtaylor.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant allegedly failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations 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. Regal LT Online LLC owns and operates the commercial website which offers clothing, accessories, beauty products, and home goods for sale online. [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 RESTORATION MANAGEMENT: Berry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restoration Management Company. The case is styled as Aliceson Berry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restoration Management Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0005597 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Restoration Management Company (RMC) -- https://rmc.com/ -- provides emergency restoration and remediation services for homes and commercial businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon S. Younesi, Esq. JUSTICE SHIELD LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2440 Phone: 424-499-4999 Fax: 323-990-6707 Email: brandon@justiceshieldlaw.com REVLON CONSUMER: Eason Files Deodorant Mislabeling Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA EASON and KEVIN MARTINEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05014 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2026) is a class action seeking monetary damages and other remedies. Defendant Revlon Consumer Products LLC manufactures, markets, and sells various products in thousands of stores throughout the United States, including in the state of California. Plaintiff Angela Eason purchased Mitchum Women's Triple Odor Defense Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant from a Target retail store. Plaintiff Kevin Martineau purchased Mitchum Men's Triple Odor Defense Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant from Amazon.com. The complaint relates that the Defendant prominently advertises, markets, and sells the Products as antiperspirant & deodorant that is "unscented". However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Products do contain fragrance ingredients and are therefore not "unscented." As such, Defendant has engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Products with the Unscented Representation. Every package of the Products misleads consumers into believing the Products do not contain fragrance. The Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the Products, which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. Further, Plaintiffs and Class members relied to their detriment on Defendant's Unscented Representation, when the Products do contain fragrance ingredients and therefore are not unscented. Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the Products – or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them – had they known the Unscented Representation was false. Plaintiffs and Class Members thus suffered monetary damages as result of Defendant's deceptive and false representation, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals who purchased the falsely and deceptively labeled Products for violations (i) California's False Advertising Law, (ii) California's Unfair Competition Law, (ii) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and (iv) fraud.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Str Ste. 650 No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-839-7077 Facsimile: 888-410-0415 E-mail: brittany@skclassactions.com RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Cornelllier Class Suit Over Gen Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON M. CORNELLIER, MICHAEL J. FRITZ, and DEAN A. SWEBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Delaware corporation, RIVIAN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:26-cv-01564 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2026) is a consumer class action to hold Rivian accountable for years of false, deceptive, and misleading statements concerning its technology and the autonomous driving capabilities of its first-generation R1T and R1S vehicles (the Gen Vehicles). Beginning in or around November 2018 and continuing through at least March 2023, Rivian explicitly marketed its Gen 1 Vehicles as capable of "Level 3 autonomy" and "true hands-free driving" through its "Driver+" system, and represented to consumers that such functionality, whether available at the time of delivery or through over-the-air software updates, would be standard on every Rivian vehicle. But Rivian's representations were simply untrue. In reality, Rivian manufactured its Gen 1 Vehicles without the hardware, cameras, sensors, and compute to enable hands-free driving and/or Level 3 autonomous operation, the suit says. Indeed, the Driver+ system was never designed to support the type of autonomous driving Rivian claimed its vehicles could perform. No software update -- no matter how sophisticated -- will enable its Gen 1 Vehicles to perform as advertised. Rivian unquestionably knew that its Gen 1 Vehicles would never be capable of Level 3 autonomy or "true hands-free driving" yet continued to tout the supposed capabilities of its vehicles to induce consumers to purchase them, the suit adds. Rivian's marketing reached and influenced the Plaintiffs and Class members and induced them to purchase Gen 1 Vehicles at prices materially inflated by Rivian's false promises. The Plaintiffs are such consumers. In reasonable reliance on Rivian's representations regarding Driver+ system and the supposed autonomous driving capabilities of the Gen 1 Vehicles, each Plaintiff purchased (or leased) a Gen 1 R1T or R1S during the relevant period. The Plaintiffs and the Class did not receive what they paid for. Instead, they received vehicles that are substantially less capable, and materially less valuable, than Rivian represented them to be. Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged as a result. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased a new Rivian with the Driver+ platform and technology but never received the level of autonomous driving promised to them by Rivian. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Rivian for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment on behalf of the Class. The Plaintiffs further bring consumer protection claims for violations of numerous state law consumer protection statutes, including but not limited to the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Rivian, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells electric vehicles under the "Rivian" brand.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick M. Persinger, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6806 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory Coleman, Esq. S. Jarret Raab, Esq. Ryan McMillan, Esq. COLEMAN LAW, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: gcoleman@gregcolemanlaw.com jraab@gregcolemanlaw.com rmcmillan@gregcolemanlaw.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Illegal Sports Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY COLLAR, JASON JORDAN, and CHRISTOPHER REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. and ROBINHOOD DERIVATIVES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05724 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover billions of dollars in wagers from Robinhood's unlawful operation of an unlicensed sports gambling platform and related deceptive and misleading business practices. The complaint relates that Defendant Robinhood facilitates the sale of illegal and unregulated sports event gaming contracts to its customers through its mobile app and website. Robinhood began selling event contracts on October 28, 2024, to anyone over the age of 18 in all 50 states, even in states where gambling in casinos and making bets through sportsbooks is restricted to individuals who are 21 or older, like New Jersey. Robinhood aggressively markets prediction markets--through push notifications from its app, email solicitations, ads on the internet, and television--to potential users and accepts payments through financial systems widely accessible to consumers. In offering sports gambling to consumers, Robinhood creates a misleading impression either actively or by omission that Kalshi's prediction markets have the approval of state gambling control authorities and are legal when, in fact, they do not, and are illegal under state law. Persons who are prone to gambling compulsions and avoid gambling websites, and who maintain brokerage accounts with Robinhood, are exposed to gambling-related communications and at times succumb to the abuses of compulsory gambling. Robinhood knowingly offered illegal sports bets and unjustly profited on Plaintiffs and the Class, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, request, among other things, that the Court enjoin Robinhood from the unlawful conduct alleged herein; award Plaintiffs and the Class damages under common law and/or by statute, including treble and/or punitive damages plus restitution and/or disgorgement. They also seek attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs Jason Jordan, Timothy Collar, and Christopher Reyes wagered and lost money trading sports event contracts through Robinhood's Prediction Markets Hub. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is the parent company of Robinhood Derivatives, LLC. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is generally responsible for all of Robinhood's operations, including prediction markets, whereas Robinhood Derivatives, LLC, is specifically responsible for facilitating the sale of gaming event contracts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 745-3232 E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Timothy D. Brennan, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 570 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com tbrennan@wolfpopper.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Unlawfully Operates Gambling Platform, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN AUSTIN and RICK GREGORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. and ROBINHOOD DERIVATIVES, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05978 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2026) seeks to recover billions of dollars in wagers from Robinhood's unlawful operation of an unlicensed sports gambling platform and related deceptive and misleading business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants facilitate the sale of illegal and unregulated sports event contracts to its customers through its mobile application and website. Robinhood attempts to skirt around sports betting restrictions -- which fall under state control since a 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) -- by selling bets that it characterizes as financial contracts tied to the outcome of events, known as "event contracts," and arguing that these so-called "prediction markets" are akin to commodity markets, regulated not by state sports betting laws, but the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. section, et seq., and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Robinhood facilitates the sale of the event contracts to its customers through a partnership with non-party prediction market platform on its designated contract market. Robinhood's customers are led to believe that sports event contracts are a modern, sophisticated form of investing on a federally regulated commodities exchange that can be accessed on a phone. In reality, the sports event contracts Robinhood sells are ordinary, old-fashioned bets or wagers on the outcomes of sporting events (i.e., gaming). By operating an unlicensed sports gambling operation, Robinhood has violated state gambling laws and regulations, engaged in deceptive conduct, and unjustly enriched itself at the expense of millions of consumers, says the suit. Robinhood began selling event contracts on October 28, 2024, to anyone purportedly over the age of 18 in all U.S. states, including in states where gambling in casinos and making bets through sportsbooks is illegal, restricted to individuals who are 21 or older, like New Jersey, or limited to Native American reservations, like Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Washington, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, the suit further contends. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in Menlo Park, California, that operates an electronic retail brokerage platform for stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptocurrencies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. Serina M. Vash, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com svash@hermanjones.com - and - George W. Cochran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 Telephone: (330) 607-2187 E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com RUSSELL CELLULAR: Court Sets Aguilar-Vasquez Trial for October 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jonathan Aguilar-Vasquez, Adessa Consulting, Inc. and Tina Burns, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Russell Cellular, Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-03218-MBB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Megan Blair Benton of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, issued a Scheduling and Trial Order setting the framework for a jury trial in the matter. The court set trial to commence on October 4, 2027, in Springfield, Missouri, with a final pretrial conference on September 20, 2027. The order established deadlines for amending pleadings and joining additional parties (January 29, 2027), a deadline of March 1, 2027 for any motion for class certification, and discovery cutoffs of April 30, 2027 for class-based discovery and May 14, 2027 for merits-based discovery. The order also set expert designation deadlines (April 16, 2027 for Plaintiffs and May 14, 2027 for Defendants), a dispositive motion deadline of June 15, 2027, and a Daubert motion deadline of July 15, 2027. Additional provisions govern discovery disputes, exhibit and witness lists, deposition designations, jury instructions, and procedures for extensions of time. A copy of the Court's Scheduling Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b21nLx from PacerMonitor.com SAFE AND SECURE: Faces Bair Health Plan Suit Over ERISA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARSHA BAIR; AHMED ABDELKAMEL; CYNTHIA GERBER; ZACHARY GODING, MAGGIE GRAHAM; BARBARA GRASER; SHAWNNA HILEMAN; CARRIE HUFF; ELAINE LANTER; CHRISTINE MILLER; LAURA MOYER; MICHAEL O'HARA; COURTNEY PRITCHETT; JARED RIBLET; JARRIUS RIBLET; EMILY ROMANS; STANLEY SMALLWOOD; VICKI SMALLWOOD; HEATHER TACKETT; and BETH WINEMILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAFE AND SECURE HOMECARE CORPORATION, d/b/a SAFE AND SECURE HEALTHCARE CORP., and d/b/a SAFE & SECURE HEALTHCARE; ROBERT J. NICHOLSON; SAFE & SECURE HOMECARE HEALTH PLAN; SAFE & SECURE HOMECARE 401(K) PLAN; and JOHN DOE PLAN FIDUCIARY(S), Case No. 2:26-cv-00748-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 21, 2026) is a Class and Collective Action Complaint alleges violations in seven broad categories: (1) (Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations related to the Health Plan; (2) ERISA violations related to the 401(k) Plan; (3) Ohio Prompt Pay Act violations related to Defendants' non-ERISA Voluntary Plans; (4) wage-hour violations related to Defendants' paying house managers straight time for all hours worked before July 2025; (5) wage-hour violations related to Defendants' misclassifying house managers as exempt from overtime since July 2025; (6) wage-hour violations related to Defendants' retroactively lowering employees' pay to minimum wage for their final two pay periods before separation from the company; and (7) wage-hour violations related to Defendants' failure to pay site leads and house managers for off-the-clock scheduling and related work. Over the last several years, the Defendants have allegedly taken multiple illegal actions to shortchange and outright steal from their own employees. When an employee puts in a notice of resignation, Defendants retroactively reduce the pay rates for their recent workweeks to minimum wage. Until July 2025, Defendants did not pay house managers a premium for overtime hours worked. A 2025 collective action case regarding the house managers was not enough to stop Defendants improper actions: Defendants paid off potential claimants so they couldn't join the action, and then changed the house managers to salaried to continue cheating the employees out of their owed overtime. Other salaried employees who primarily performed direct care work were similarly misclassified and not paid at all for hourly work, as were site leads responsible for scheduling who had to perform the work off-the-clock. Besides these wage-hour violations, the Defendants committed a number of violations related to employee benefit plans. Defendants withheld, but failed to remit, both employee and employer premiums to the Health Plan, causing Plan Participants to incur charges at a time they believed they were covered. The Defendants withheld, but failed to remit, both employee and employer premiums to the 401(k) Plan, and failed to complete the proper registration to allow employees to access their Plan accounts. Finally, Defendants withheld but failed to remit employee premiums to various non-ERISA employee benefit plans, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were Defendants' employees that include direct care workers, site leads, house managers, workshop managers, and operations managers. Safe and Secure provides home healthcare, workforce, and entertainment services to disabled adults throughout Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Lubow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM LUBOW 700 W. St. Clair Ave., No. 320 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 E-mail: adam@lubowlaw.com SHANTI Q SPA: Hou Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Huachang Hou, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Shanti Q Spa Inc., Yonghong Hang a/k/a Peter Hang, Case No. 2:26-cv-07048 (D.N.J., June 12, 2026), is brought brought by Plaintiff alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices and to recover from the Defendants: compensation for failure to pay minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff minimum wage compensation for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week. The Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee entitled under the FLSA and NJWHL to overtime equal to time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a staff member from June 2019 to May 2025. Shanti Q Spa Inc. is a domestic business corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yubo Li, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Email: yli@hanglaw.com SPARTANNASH ASSOCIATES: Boswell Sues Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------ TARA LEAN BOSWELL, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPARTANNASH ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00199-CRH (D.N.D., June 17, 2026) is a class action against SpartanNash pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, prospective employers were obtaining and using consumer reports in a manner that violated the privacy rights of job applicants. Consequently, when relying on consumer reports to make hiring and subsequent employment-related decisions, the FCRA now requires employers to disclose to consumers, in writing, that their consumer reports may be obtained for employment purposes. Despite these and other prohibitions, the Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes. As such, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Boswell was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. SpartanNash is engaged in the business of food distribution and retail in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 E-mail: ilozo@sirillp.com ST. MARY OF NAZARETH: Buckner-el Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELLEN BUCKNER-EL, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ST. MARY OF NAZARETH HOSPITAL - CHICAGO, LLC, and PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-07109 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Chicago, Illinois and worked for Defendants from March 1980 to July 2025, as a patient access representative, registering patients, verifying insurance, and collecting payments, amount other job duties. The Defendants employ hourly, non-exempt employees in patient access, patient registration, admissions, intake, front-desk registration, scheduling, and similar patient-facing registration positions at their Illinois hospitals and medical facilities. The Defendant operates its hospital in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MH 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Ethan C. Goeman, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: Byers Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nikea Byers, Gabrielle Winans, Kenneth Smith, Tanisha Madison, and Wanda Sinkler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, THE 401(K) PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:26-cv-00448 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01656-RDA-WEF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Breach of Fiduciary Duties. Sunrise Senior Living -- https://www.sunriseseniorliving.com/ -- provides older adults personalized care and services in an environment celebrating longer, healthier, happier lives.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Maro, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Email: jamesm@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com The Defendants are represented by: Edward Joseph Meehan, Esq. Tom Benjamin Scott-Sharoni, Esq. Michael Prame, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 857-0620 Fax: (202) 659-4503 Email: emeehan@groom.com tscott-sharoni@groom.com mprame@groom.com SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Hartwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER HARTWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No. 4:26-cv-04834 (S.D. Tex., June 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and that was impacted in a cyber incident which occurred on or about June 15, 2026 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and ransfer that information. On or around June 16, 2026, known ransomware group "ShinyHunters" publicly claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Defendant. The group posted an extortion notice indicating that sensitive data would be released with a warning to "Make the right decision, don't be the next headline." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the Dark Web as a result of the Data Breach, or it imminently will be, as described in the "Final Warning" of the cybercriminals, says the suit. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and upend the personal lives of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff. 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. The 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 suit further alleges. Formed in 1969, the Sysco Corporation operates more than 340 distribution facilities worldwide, supplying nearly 500 fresh and frozen food products, culinary supplies, and restaurant equipment to roughly 750,000 locations spanning 10 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Roberts, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: jroberts@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com THURSDAY BOOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THURSDAY BOOT COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04510 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.thursdayboots.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services, says the suit. Based in Denver, CO, Thursday Boot Company owns and operates physical retail stores, and the website which offers footwear, outdoor gear and accessories for sale. [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 TL CAPITAL: Dusza Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MAREK DUSZA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated plaintiffs, known and unknown v. TL CAPITAL VENTURES, INC., D/B/A TOM LEN CUSTOM HOMES AND/OR CAPITAL VENTURES, INC., AND TOM LEN, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:26-cv-07133 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2026) is a action is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff is a former custom cabinet maker of TLVC who, like other putative Class Members similarly situated, has been employed by TLVC and compensated on a straight hourly rate basis with no payment of overtime compensation at the statutorily mandated his regular hourly rate for hours in excess of 40 per statutory workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by TLVC from January of 2025 through December of 2025 and at all times was an employee of Defendants All other unnamed Plaintiffs, known and unknown are past or present employees who work or worked for Defendants as custom cabinet makers and who were not paid an overtime premium wage at a rate of one and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. TL CAPITAL VENTURES, INC. provides custom residential construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com TRANSTEK INDUSTRIES: Collects TikTok Scores, Kirchner Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KIRCHNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSTEK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-06591 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2026) contends that the Defendant installed, has used, and currently uses software owned by TikTok on the Website to collect and transmit to TikTok scores of data points about a visitor, her browser and her computer. According to the complaint, the purpose of this software (the TikTok Software) is to identify the visitor so that she can be targeted with marketing based on data about her, including marketing placed on the TikTok platform. This is performed without visitors' consent or any court order, for Defendant's and TikTok's financial and commercial benefit, the suit says. The Plaintiff visited the Website on November 30, 2025 from a location in California. Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant deployed a de anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using incoming electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. The same happened with respect to numerous other persons visiting the Website from California. The Defendant's installation and use of TikTok Software without obtaining consent or authorization therefore violated California Penal Code section 638.51, California's Trap and Trace Law and duties Defendant owed to Plaintiff and other visitors to the Website similarly situated under applicable common law. Transtek operates a website, located at https://store.diono.com, to sell strollers, car seats and baby carriers to individuals in California. Diono, a subsidiary of and Brand belonging to Transtek, runs a significant number of campaigns advertising its products on the social media/advertising platform TikTok.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camrie Ventry, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com TREK BICYCLE: Wade Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Scheme --------------------------------------------------- Milton Wade and Noah Wright, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Trek Bicycle Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00552 (W.D. Wis., June 12, 2026), is brought damages and equitable relief against the Defendant as a result of an unlawful tariff scheme. Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") to impose new and significant tariffs ("subject tariffs") on imports from nearly every foreign country, including those from which Trek sources its products. Despite seeking and now being entitled to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the subject tariffs, Trek has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers. Upon the determination that the subject tariffs were unlawful, giving rise to Trek's right to receive the duties it paid under the unlawful tariff scheme, Trek was likewise obligated to return the corresponding tariff surcharge collected from Plaintiffs and Class members. Trek's retention of those surcharges unjustly profits Trek at the expense of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the estimated thousands of similarly situated consumers, seek to ensure that their and the proposed Classes' contributions to paying the subject tariffs are returned and to demand appropriate monetary, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased current year model Trek bicycles. Trek designs, manufactures, imports, and sells bicycles, bicycle parts and components, and bicycle accessories to consumers ranging from hobbyist to elite cyclists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: June P. Hoidal, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian III, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Katja D. Lange, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com Charles.Toomajian@zimmreed.com Michael.Laird@zimmreed.com Katja.Lange@zimmreed.com TRIBAL HEALTH: Gibson Seeks Compensatory Damages for Lost Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKAH GIBSON v. ABSENTEE SHAWNEE, TRIBAL HEALTH SYSTEM, JOHN KAMMERZELL, and MICHELE NOWELL, Case No. 5:26-cv-01455-JD (W.D. Okla., June 17, 2026) is a class action suit brought the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeking compensatory damages against all Defendants for lost wages from October 6, 2025 to the date of judgment, in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff Rebekah Gibson was employed by Defendant Absentee Shawnee Tribal Health System as Materials Management Director from January 10, 2022, until her unlawful termination on October 6, 2025. The suit also seeks compensatory damages for lost employment benefits, including health insurance, retirement contributions, and other fringe benefits, in an amount to be determined at trial. Absentee Shawnee Tribal Health System is a health care entity formed under the laws of the State of Oklahoma with a principal place of business in Shawnee, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cameron Glass, Esq. GLASS WOOD WANG & ASSOCIATES 10400 Vineyard Blvd. Suite G100 Oklahoma City, OK 73120 E-mail: cameron@glasswoodwang.com VANDERBILT CANAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO v. VANDERBILT CANAL CO., LLC and FADARASH CORP, Case No. 1:26-cv-24229 (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Defendant owned and operated a commercial shopping plaza located at 12011-12100 SW 117 CT., Miami, Florida(Commercial Property).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-Mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com legalassistant@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com aquezada@lawgmp.com legalassistant@lawgmp.com XSOLIS INC: Chu Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xsolis, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Chu, Jeffrey McGrath, Adam Nicholson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Xsolis, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00810 (M.D. Tenn., June 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Xsolis, Inc. -- https://www.xsolis.com/ -- operates as healthcare technology company. The Company offers an artificial intelligence-based software platform that helps national health systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Tricia Herzfeld, Esq. HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 800-6225 Fax: (615) 994-8625 Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com tricia@hsglawgroup.com XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Mathews Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XSOLIS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00839 (M.D. Tenn., June 22, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and Protected Health Information who were impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On January 22, 2026, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity within its systems and engaged external cybersecurity professionals to assist in an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized actor acquired certain files containing sensitive information maintained by Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare technology company that provides case and utilization management services to healthcare organizations. Defendant is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, 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: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Awards $10.2MM Against Vi-Jon in Talc Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------------- Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a Minnesota couple has won $10.2 million after a jury found that decades of exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products caused the husband's mesothelioma diagnosis. The verdict is believed to be the second-highest mesothelioma-related personal injury award in Minnesota history. The defendants manufactured talc products under some of the country's most recognizable brand names. The jury found the following companies responsible: Vi-Jon LLC, maker of Walgreens, Walmart's Equate and Target's Up and Up products; Sanofi, maker of Gold Bond; Merck, maker of Dr. Scholl's; Johnson & Johnson; and Perrigo Co. of Tennessee. All were found to have made their products in a "defective and unreasonably dangerous condition" and to have failed to warn consumers. Doctors diagnosed Daniel Heyer with mesothelioma in late 2024, when he was 43 years old. He testified at trial but is now on oxygen and confined to a wheelchair. He and his wife Nicole have four daughters between the ages of 7 and 15. Heyer’s attorneys say he inhaled asbestos fibers from contaminated baby powder, body powder and foot powder throughout his childhood and adulthood. Medical and scientific research flagging dangers tied to these products goes back to 1924. Evidence at trial showed Vi-Jon didn’t investigate or test its products for asbestos, even after receiving repeated warnings. ********* 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 ***