---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 133

                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Plaintiff Gets $3MM in Attorney Fees & Costs
ALABAMA: Settlement Deal Gets Court's Initial OK
ALCOTT HR: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Klinger Alleges
ASSETMARK INC: Barr Files Suit Over Data Breach
ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Alexander Files Suit Over Data Breach

ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Fails to Secure Private Info, Brown Says
ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Johnson Files Suit Over Data Breach
AXION CONTACT: Moore Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLACKBERRY LTD: Pretrial Conference Set for Sept. 16 in SFA Suit
BLOCK EQUITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Smallwood Due August 10

DANAHER CORP: $172.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3
DYSON INC: Hernandez Sue Over Unlawful Retention of IEEPA Tariffs
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Schedule
FIVE BELOW: Grazioli Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges
FORESIGHT ENERGY: Hewitt Seeks to Send Notice to Employees

GOLABS INC: Castillo Files Suit Over Misleading Fake Discounts
HN & SONS: Pagano Gets $86K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Denied Employment Due to Credit Report
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Bid to Dismiss Bruns Class Suit Tossed
MANZANA LLC: Class Certification Bid in Zavala Due by August 21

METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions
MISSISSIPPI: Filing for Class Cert in Crawford Due August 14
NETPEAK USA: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Boudreaux Says
NUTRIEN LTD: Red River Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: $70MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 1

PGMS LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Club Workers, Felix Says
POLY-WOOD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says
QUANTUM CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
STATE OF MARYLAND: Loses Bid to Defeat Overdetention Class Claims
SUZHOU EAVISION: Day Sues Over Drone Defects and Safety Hazards

TATTOOED CHEF: $4.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3
VOLVO CAR: Court Dismisses Saleh Class Action w/o Prejudice
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Tossed
ZYMERGEN INC: Class Settlement in Wang Suit Gets Initial Nod

                            *********

ALABAMA: Plaintiff Gets $3MM in Attorney Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C., et al., v. NANCY T.
BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources,
in her official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-ECM-CWB (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs as follows:

  1. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees in

     the amount of $3 million.

  2. The Court further grants the Plaintiffs' attorneys'
     reimbursement of their litigation costs in the amount of
     $400,000. The Court finds that these expenses were necessary,

     reasonable, and proper in the pursuit of this litigation. The

     State of Alabama shall pay these sums (totaling $3,400,000) to

     Plaintiffs within 60 days of the date of this Order.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zJ06EN
at no extra charge.[CC]

 


ALABAMA: Settlement Deal Gets Court's Initial OK
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C., et al., v. NANCY T.
BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources,
in her official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-ECM-CWB (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the
joint motion to certify their proposed Settlement Class and for
final approval of their class action settlement agreement as
follows:

  1. This Order incorporates the settlement agreement and the
     preliminary approval order.

In the preliminary approval order, the Court certified the
following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:

     "All children who are adjudicated dependent under Alabama Code

     section 12-15-314(a)(3), and who have, or have a record of, a

     mental health impairment that substantially limits one or more

     major life activities."

Certification of the Settlement Class is reaffirmed as a final
settlement class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b)(2) for the same reasons set forth in the Court's
preliminary approval order. (Id.).

The Court previously appointed Plaintiffs C.C., F.F., and G.G., as
the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class and reaffirms
those appointments.

The Court previously appointed Andrea Mixson, Larry Canada, Michael
Tafelski, Claire Sherburne, Sophia Mire Hill, Euguene Choi, Lindsey
Frye, Samantha Bartosz, Katrina Braun, Valerie Achille, and Micaela
Heery-Hyatt to serve as Class Counsel and reaffirms those
appointments.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TzUH0w
at no extra charge.[CC]

 


ALCOTT HR: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Klinger Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
LORA KLINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALCOTT HR GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-CV-03814 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) is a class action resulting
from a recent cyberattack and data breach suffered by Defendant,
detected in February 2025, involving personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI",
collectively with PII, "Private Information").

The complaint relates that the Defendant collects PII in the course
of doing business. This PII includes the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew
or should have known that it was responsible for protecting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from
unauthorized disclosure. In February 2025, Defendant became aware
of unusual activity on certain systems on its network environment,
and subsequently launched an investigation into the matter. On
March 27, 2026, Defendant began sending Notice of Data Incident
letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them that their
Private Information was exfiltrated in the Data Breach. The
following types of Private Information were compromised as a result
of the Data Breach: names, dates of birth, health information, and
Social Security numbers. The  Defendant failed to safeguard
individuals' Private Information.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (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) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii)
the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private
Information, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i)
negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract,
(iii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and (iv) unjust
enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited
to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and
declaratory relief.

Plaintiff Lora Klinger is a citizen and resident of Oxford, North
Carolina.

Defendant Alcott HR Group LLC is a New York-based company that
provides human resource services to clients located in over 40
states across the country.[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

ASSETMARK INC: Barr Files Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
JEANETTE BARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSETMARK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-6288 (N.D. Cal., June 23, 2026) arises out of the recent
data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized
access to, and disclosure of, the highly sensitive data of
individuals.

The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of business,
Defendant obtains, stores, and maintain private information. In
exchange for receiving Plaintiff and Class Members' Private
Information, Defendant promised to safeguard the sensitive,
confidential data and use it only for authorized and legitimate
purposes, and to delete such information from their systems once
there was no longer a need to maintain it. Recently, Defendant
identified suspicious activity with certain employee login
credentials. On May 15, 2026, Defendant became aware that an
unauthorized user obtained access to and downloaded certain files
containing customer information on the same day. Defendant's
investigation into the Data Breach determined that confidential and
personal information, was exposed as a result of the Data Breach.
The types of Private Information compromised included names and
Social Security Numbers. On June 11, 2026, Defendant began
notifying affected persons, including Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered a loss of value of their PII when it was acquired by cyber
thieves in the Data Breach. On June 16, 2026, Plaintiff Barr
experienced two events she believes are connected to the Data
Breach. Plaintiff Barr received an alert that someone attempted to
log into her Apple account from Denmark. Plaintiff Barr also
received a fraudulent notification from "LifeLock," a product she
does not currently use. The notification claimed that someone was
attempting to take money out of Plaintiff Barr's bank accounts. As
a result, Plaintiff Barr anticipates spending considerable time and
money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms
caused by the Data Breach. In addition, Plaintiff will continue to
be at present, imminent, and continued increased risk of identity
theft and fraud for the remainder of her life, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, seeks
compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which
includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant,
the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity
theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs.

Plaintiff Jeanette Barr is a citizen of the State of New York.

Defendant AssetMark, Inc. is a wealth management platform that
serves financial advisors at every stage of their journey with
flexible, purpose-built solutions, powered by its innovative
technology platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Nelson, Esq.
     MILBERG, PLLC
     280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (858) 209-6941
     E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
     4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
     Cincinnati, OH 45242
     Telephone: (513) 345-8291
     E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

          - and -

     Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
     510 Walnut St., Ste 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Telephone: (215) 592-1500
     E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

          - and -

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
     Telephone: (516) 873-9550
     E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Alexander Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON ALEXANDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY LLC
D/B/A ASSURANCEAMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03536-MHC (N.D.
Ga., June 24, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect
highly sensitive data.

The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant
receives and maintains the personal identifiable information
("PII")  of thousands of its consumers. In collecting and
maintaining the highly sensitive PII, Defendant agreed it would
safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state
law, and federal law. However, the Defendant experienced a data
breach on March 16, 2026. The following types of PII were
compromised: Contact information, Automobile insurance policy or
insurance account information, Driver or vehicle information,
Claims-related information, Driver's license numbers, Tax ID
information, and Social Security numbers. Currently, the precise
number of persons injured is unclear. But the size of the putative
class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody
and control. The putative class is over one hundred members. And
yet, Defendant waited until June 17, 2026, before it began
notifying the class, approximately three months after the Data
Breach was discovered.

Because of this, Plaintiff has suffered—and will continue to
suffer from anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and
frustration. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and
theft of her PII, which violates her rights to privacy, says the
suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other
Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion
of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest
invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their
credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment
interest and costs, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff Shannon Alexander is a current customer of Defendant.

Defendant AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency LLC d/b/a
AssuranceAmerica is an auto, renters, and commercial auto insurance
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
     Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
     ALONSO & WIRTH
     1708 Peachtree Street, NW
     Suite 303
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (678) 928-4472
     E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
             dwirth@alonsowirth.com

          - and -

     Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
     Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
     Brittany Resch, Esq.
     Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
     Carly M. Roman, Esq.
     STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
     980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
     Chicago, IL 60611
     2261 Market Street, Ste 22946
     San Francisco, CA 94114
     Telephone: (872) 263-1100
     Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
     E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
             cmiller@straussborrelli.com
             bresch@straussborrelli.com
             agunem@straussborrelli.com
             croman@straussborrelli.com

ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Fails to Secure Private Info, Brown Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKEKA BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY,
LLC d/b/a ASSURANCE AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03523-MHC
(N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is a class action as a result of a recent
cyberattack and data breach suffered by the Defendant involving
personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private
Information").

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and individuals impacted
by the Data Breach directly or indirectly provided their Private
Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant
provides. On March 17, 2026, Defendant became aware that certain
systems on its network environment were affected by malicious
activity on March 16, 2026, and subsequently launched an
investigation into the matter. Defendant determined that the
following types of Private Information were compromised as a result
of the Data Breach: names, contact information, automobile
insurance policy or insurance account information, driver or
vehicle information, claims-related information, driver's license
numbers, Tax ID information and or Social Security numbers.
Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by
(a) intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that its network
servers were protected against unauthorized intrusions; (b) failing
to disclose that it did not have adequately robust security
protocols and training practices in place to safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information; (c) failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
and (d) concealing the existence and extent of the Data Breach for
an unreasonable duration of time.

Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct, adds the complaint. These injuries include:
(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) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and
(viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private
Information, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i)
negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract,
and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks remedies
including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement
of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including
improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual
audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief.

Plaintiff Shakeka Brown is a citizen and resident of North
Charleston, South Carolina.

Defendant AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC d/b/a
AssuranceAmerica is a large insurance company offering services
including automobile, commercial, and renters insurance to
customers in AL, AZ, FL, GA, IN, NE, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, and
VA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Casondra Turner, Esq.
     MILBERG, PLLC
     260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (771) 772-3086
     E-mail: cturner@milberg.com

          - and -

     Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
     Miami, FL 33132
     Telephone: (305) 479-2299
     E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Johnson Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY,
LLC d/b/a ASSURANCE AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03525-MHC
(N.D. Ga., June 24, 2026) is a class action resulting from a
cyberattack and data breach suffered by Defendant, detected on
March 17, 2026, involving personally identifiable information
("PII" or "Private Information").

The complaint relates that the Defendant collects PII in the course
of doing business. This PII includes the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew
or should have known that it was responsible for protecting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from
unauthorized disclosure. On March 17, 2026, Defendant became aware
that certain systems on its network environment were affected by
malicious activity on March 16, 2026, and subsequently launched an
investigation into the matter. Defendant determined that the
following types of Private Information were compromised as a result
of the Data Breach: names, contact information, automobile
insurance policy or insurance account information, driver or
vehicle information, claims-related information, driver's license
numbers, Tax ID information and or Social Security numbers.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (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) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii)
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 is a citizen and resident of Orange Park, Florida.

Defendant AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC d/b/a
AssuranceAmerica is a large insurance company offering services
including automobile, commercial, and renters insurance to
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Casondra Turner, Esq.
     MILBERG, PLLC
     260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Telephone: (771) 772-3086
     E-mail: cturner@milberg.com

          - and -

     Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
     One W Las Olas Bvd, Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (305) 479-2299
     E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com

AXION CONTACT: Moore Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LASHEA MOORE and COURTNEY RANKIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AXION CONTACT CENTER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04343 (E.D. Pa., June 24, 2026) is a
class and collective action against the Defendant for knowingly and
improperly failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
workers overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The complaint relates that as part of their job, the Plaintiffs
spent five or more hours each week, outside of their regularly
scheduled work hours, responding to emails and completing mandatory
job-related training sessions. The Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated workers were also routinely attending mandatory training,
and performing work tasks for Axion outside of their scheduled work
hours, but Axion failed to pay for all hours worked, as required by
the FLSA, asserts the complaint.

Although Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members were routinely
required by Axion to work more than 40 hours per week, they
received only a straight hourly rate, and were not paid for hours
worked beyond 40 a week. Accordingly, they did not receive one and
one-half times their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, as required by the FLSA. Axion either knew or acted
with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions in
failing to pay Plaintiffs and collective action members for all
hours worked, adds the complaint.

The Plaintiffs, hence, seek back pay damages (including unpaid
wages and overtime compensation) and prejudgment interest to the
fullest extent permitted under the law; liquidated damages;
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees to the fullest
extent permitted under the law; and such other and further relief
as this Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiff LaShea Moore worked for Axion remotely in the position of
Team Lead, coordinating the onboarding of call center customer
support workers and checking in with them regarding their work
assignments between July 2023 and December 2025. Moore was
classified by Axion as a W-2 employee.

Plaintiff Courtney Rankin worked for Axion remotely providing call
center customer support services for Axion's clients between May
2023 and June 2025. Rankin was classified by Axion as a W-2
employee.

Defendant Axion Contact Center, LLC is a Pennsylvania corporation
which provides telephonic customer support services to various
companies in the healthcare industry, including UnitedHealth,
Medicaid, Cigna, and UCare, throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com

          - and -

     Olena Savytska, Esq.
     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Telephone: (617) 994-5800
     Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
     E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com
             hlichten@llrlaw.com

BLACKBERRY LTD: Pretrial Conference Set for Sept. 16 in SFA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Ltd 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 25, 2026, that mediation
took place on April 21 and 22, 2026, during which no settlement was
reached with regards to a putative Ontario class action,
"Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al." A
pretrial conference has been scheduled for Sept. 16, 2026. Trial is
set for Jan. 11, 2027.

Case was filed on July 23, 2014 where the plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification and for leave to pursue statutory
misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice  issued an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On December 2, 2015, the company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling. On November 15, 2018, the court denied
the its motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiff
leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On February 5, 2019, the court entered an order certifying a class
comprised of persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification
was published on March 6, 2019. The company filed its Statement of
Defence on April 1, 2019.

BlackBerry Ltd is a Canada-based technology company that provides
intelligent security software and services to enterprises and
governments globally. The company focuses on cybersecurity,
endpoint management, embedded systems, and related technology
solutions.

BLOCK EQUITY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Smallwood Due August 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS SMALLWOOD, v. BLOCK
EQUITY GROUP, Case No. 4:25-cv-02130-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Pearson entered an order as follows:

-- Discovery shall be completed on or before Dec. 31, 2026.

-- Either a stipulation to class certification or the Plaintiff's

    motion for class certification shall be served and filed on or

    before Aug. 10, 2026. A Response shall be filed by Sept. 9,
2026
    and Reply by Sept. 23, 2026.

-- The cutoff for filing dispositive motions is Jan. 29, 2027.
    Responses shall be filed by March 1, 2027 and Replies by March
15,
    2027.

-- The next Status Conference will be held on Oct. 19, 2026, at
12:00
    p.m. Noon. The conference will be conducted via telephone
unless
    circumstances require otherwise.

Block is a commercial financial services firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r3Kzwg at no extra
charge.[CC]



DANAHER CORP: $172.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP issued a statement regarding the Danaher Securities
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRENDA HAWKINS, and DEREK
EINERSEN, individually and on behalf of all         
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

DANAHER CORPORATION, RAINER M.
BLAIR, MATT MCGREW, and
EMMANUEL LIGNER,
Defendants.   

Case No. 1:23-cv-02055 (AHA)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Danaher Corporation ("Danaher") common stock between January 27,
2022, and October 23, 2023, both dates inclusive, and are not
otherwise excluded (the "Class" and each person included therein a
"Class Member")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE (THE
"ACTION").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court"), that a
proposed class action settlement has been reached in the Action
pursuant to which a $172.5 million Settlement Fund will be
established (the "Settlement"), as set forth in a Stipulation of
Settlement, dated April 20, 2026 (the "Stipulation"). A hearing
will be held on September 3, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Amir H. Ali at the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, E. Barrett Prettyman United States
Courthouse, Courtroom 19, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20001, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award attorneys' fees
and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel out of the Settlement Fund, and
if so, in what amounts; (4) to make an award to Plaintiffs for
their representation of the Class; and (5) the proposed plan of
allocation for distributing the Settlement proceeds to Class
Members (the "Plan of Allocation") should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS IDENTIFIED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail postmarked no later than September
20, 2026, or electronically via the Settlement website identified
below no later than September 20, 2026. If you are a Class Member
and do not submit a timely Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible
to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, but you will
still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in the Action.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion postmarked no later than August 13, 2026, in
accordance with the requirements ordered by the Court. All Class
Members will be bound by any judgment entered by in the Action,
whether or not they submit a Proof of Claim. If you submit a timely
and valid request for exclusion, you will no longer be a Class
Member, which means you will not be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action and have no right to recover money pursuant to the
Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you may object to the Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation, and/or the fee and expense application filed by
Lead Counsel (the "Fee and Expense Application"). Any objection
must be filed with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs' Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel by no later than August 20, 2026, in the manner
and form ordered by the Court.

You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation as well as the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which
more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including the steps you must take to exclude yourself from the
Class or object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or
the Fee and Expense Application), and access and submit the Proof
of Claim at www.DanaherSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting
the Claims Administrator:

Danaher Securities Settlement
c/o Verita Global, LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE COURT,
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you
have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the
following address:

POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Justin D. D'Aloia
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
jdaloia@pomlaw.com

DATED: June 29, 2026

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


DYSON INC: Hernandez Sue Over Unlawful Retention of IEEPA Tariffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DYSON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-06898 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2026) seeks to recover the
refunds of International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
tariffs, which the Supreme Court ruled were illegal when charged.

The Plaintiff maintains that she and other Dyson consumers are
entitled to the refunds of these tariffs because Dyson has already
recouped tariff costs from consumers through higher retail prices.
Despite the IEEPA tariffs being declared illegal, Defendant Dyson
has failed to establish a refund process for Plaintiff and Class
Members.

Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Dyson, Inc. manufactures and
distributes household appliances. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
         POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC
         32 Ann Street
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (803) 222-2222
         Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
         E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                 cmad@poulinwilley.com

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFFON GILLYARD and
JEFFREY WOOLLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01666-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order granting their motion to continue class
certification motion schedule as follows:

    The Plaintiffs' motion: Jan. 11, 2027

    The Defendant's response: March 8, 2027

    The Plaintiffs' reply: April 5, 2027

The Parties have continued to engage in settlement discussions and
agree that additional time to negotiate and conduct a second
mediation would better serve the Parties and the Court, rather than
proceeding with the current briefing schedule.

Therefore, the Parties wish to continue the current Class
Certification Motion Schedule for approximately five months to
accommodate continued settlement negotiations.

There will be no prejudice to the Parties if this Stipulated Motion
is granted. In the interests of justice, this Stipulated Motion
should be granted.

Federal Express is an American multinational conglomerate holding
company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business
services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LozAzW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq.
          Gregory A Wolk, Esq.
          REKHI & WOLK, P.S.
          529 Warren Ave N., Suite 201
          Seattle, WA 98109
          Telephone: (206) 388-5887
          Facsimile: (206) 577-3924
          E-mail: hardeep@rekhiwolk.com
                  greg@rekhiwolk.com

                - and -

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 693-7727  
          Facsimile: (619) 350-6855  
          E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gabriella Wagner, Esq.
          WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON
          1000 Second Ave, Suite 2050,  
          Seattle, WA 98104-3629,
          Telephone: (206) 623-4100
          E-mail: Wagner@wscd.com

                - and -

          Mitchell S. Bober, Esq.
          1000 FedEx Drive
          Moon Township, PA 15108
          Telephone: (412) 859-2120
          E-mail: Mitchell.bober@fedex.com

               - and -

          Daniel T. French, Esq.
          3620 Hacks Cross Road
          Building B, Third Floor
          Memphis, TN 38125
          Telephone: (901) 434-8353
          E-mail: danielfrench@fedex.com

FIVE BELOW: Grazioli Seeks Refund of Tariff Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA GRAZIOLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:26-cv-04322 (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2026) is a class action
seeking a refund of tariff surcharges.

In early 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump imposed, via
Executive Orders, tariffs on dozens of countries. Although those
tariffs were imposed directly on businesses, many businesses,
including Five Below, turned around and passed the costs of the
tariffs on to consumers via price increases (often explicitly
linked to the tariffs) or even via specific tariff-related fees
and/or surcharges.

On February 20, 2026, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, held that
International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the
President to impose tariffs. In other words, the Court struck down
President Trump's far-reaching global tariffs. Thereafter, a U.S.
trade court judge ordered the government to begin paying
potentially billions of dollars in refunds to importers who paid
tariffs that the Supreme Court said were collected illegally. Judge
Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan
ordered the refunds to be made with interest.

The complaint relates that more than once, Ms. Grazioli shopped at
and purchased from Five Below between April 2, 2025 and February
20, 2026. Like other Five Below customers, she paid higher prices
on those purchases than at other times. Those price increases were
a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of the tariffs
imposed by the 2025 Executive Orders.

It is currently unknown whether Five Below is seeking or has filed
for a refunds of the illegal tariffs it paid. It also has not
stated publicly that it intends to provide any consumer(s) any
refund(s) for any extra amount(s) the consumer(s) paid for any
good(s) due to the illegal tariffs.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and the Class members are
entitled to a declaration that a business actually seeking and/or
receiving a refund from the federal government for amounts paid as
a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of the tariffs
imposed by the 2025 Executive Orders is not a condition,
precondition, or prerequisite for a consumer being able to seek
and/or receive a refund(s) of any amounts the consumer paid to a
business as a result of, due to, and/or to offset any or all of
those tariffs.

Plaintiff Barbara Grazioli is a resident of Maple Shade, New
Jersey

Defendant Five Below, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that has
1,921 stores across 46 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael H. Sampson, Esq.
     LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Telephone: (412) 253-4992
     E-mail: mike@lcllp.com

FORESIGHT ENERGY: Hewitt Seeks to Send Notice to Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Hewitt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Foresight Energy LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03273-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
for notice under Richards v. Eli Lilly & Co., 149 F.4th 901 (7th
Cir. 2025), pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiff seeks to send notice to:

    "All current and former hourly-paid mining employees of the
    Defendant who worked over 40 hours in any workweek at any time

    during the three (3) years preceding the date of filing this
    Action to the present, excluding any individual who has validly

    released all claims in this time period."

Foresight produces thermal coal.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x3J5Da at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 489-7653
          Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
          E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
                  rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
 


GOLABS INC: Castillo Files Suit Over Misleading Fake Discounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04875-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for advertising goods or services with the
intent not to sell them as advertised.

Defendant GoLabs, Inc. sells and markets GoTrax-branded electric
vehicle products, including eBikes and eScooters online through its
website, www.gotrax.com

The complaint relates that on its website, Defendant lists
purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering
steep discounts from those regular prices. Defendant consistently
advertises a constant stream of rotating promotions purportedly
linked to specific holidays or events. Defendant also attempts to
add a sense of urgency by connecting its advertised sales with
specific limited-time holidays or events. But in reality, the deals
do not end when they are advertised to. Instead, they are simply
replaced with a different, but substantially similar, new sale.
Indeed, far from being time-limited, the advertised discounts on
Defendant's Products are routinely available. As a result,
everything about Defendant's price and purported discount
advertising is false. The listed prices Defendant advertises are
not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's
Products are routinely available for less than them. The purported
discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts a
customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are
the purported discounts limited-time -- quite the opposite, they
are consistently available, adds the complaint.

GoTrax did not provide the discount that it had promised. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's breaches, Plaintiff and
class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargained-for
exchange, and have suffered damages in an amount to be established
at trial, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks all damages available, including
expectation damages and/or damages measured by the price premium
charged to Plaintiff and the other class members as a result of
Defendant's unlawful conduct.

Plaintiff Mario Castillo is domiciled in Bakersfield, California
who purchased GoTrax Product of Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Simon Franzini, Esq.
     Grace Bennett, Esq.
     DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
     201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
     Santa Monica, California 90401
     Telephone: (310) 656-7066
     Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069
     E-mail: simon@dovel.com
             grace@dovel.com

HN & SONS: Pagano Gets $86K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN PAGANO, PAIGE
ACEVEDO, and MAGGIE MCNEIL, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, DONALD NORWOOD, CLARICE REINER, NATHAN SEARING,
NARA AVAKIAN, NOLAN SLAY, BEATRICE DAMICO, JUSTIN BROWN, AARON
APPLEBEY, DYLAN PARR, ELIZABETH ARMANINI, ANGEL DE LOS SANTOS,
MICHELLE MAXWELL, and DANIEL M. BEAVERSEITZ, v. HN & SONS LLC d/b/a
Bushwick Public House, DERIHU 18 LLC a/k/a Chispa, and HOOMAN
ENAYATIAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-04897-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Cogan entered an order as follows

The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is therefore
granted in the amount of $86,073.75 in fees plus $5,076 in costs,
subject to plaintiffs McNeil and Pagano first collecting their
damages awards plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

Although the plaintiffs' collective and class certification motions
were granted (albeit the latter was unopposed), the plaintiffs did
not prevail in securing any damages awards for the opt-ins or the
class.

Given plaintiffs' lack of success on this front, the Court is
reducing the plaintiffs' fee request by 25% for a total of
$86,073.75. The Plaintiffs' request for $5,076 in costs is
reasonable and is granted.

HN & Sons LLC was a popular local cafe, bar, and event space
located at 1288 Myrtle Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJ9y6c
at no extra charge.[CC]



LOWE'S COMPANIES: Sued Over Denied Employment Due to Credit Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY MIKE DAY, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02087-D (N.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is a
class action seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The complaint relates that in mid-January 2026, Plaintiff applied
online with Defendant through Defendant's career website, seeking a
Security Specialist position at Defendant's warehouse logistics
center located in Ennis, Texas. The Plaintiff participated in the
virtual interview and completed a drug screen and background check.
The adverse action process was designed and executed in a manner
that misled and confused Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff was
confused by the contradictory and misleading communications from
First Advantage because: (1) the February 19, 2026 "pre-adverse
action" email stated the background check was complete and had been
submitted to Defendant; (2) First Advantage directed Plaintiff to
wait for communication from Defendant, which never came; (3)
Plaintiff followed the dispute instructions provided in the
Consumer Report but First Advantage never responded to his dispute;
(4) Plaintiff received an adverse action notice on February 26,
2026, followed by yet another email on February 27, 2026 stating
that his Consumer Report was "now complete" and being submitted to
Defendant for a second time -- despite the February 19 email having
already stated it was complete and submitted; and (5) Plaintiff's
only criminal activity was considered obsolete by Texas law and
should not have been considered in the hiring process.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's Consumer Report is
misleading and includes obsolete information. Specifically,
Plaintiff's Consumer Report was to have been restricted to a
seven-year look back period but includes multiple pieces of
unfavorable information preceding the look back period. The
inclusion of unfavorable information beyond the seven-year look
back period paints a false and negative picture of Plaintiff. As a
result of the misleading and contradictory communications
throughout the adverse action process, Plaintiff was confused as to
whether the information included in the Consumer Report could be
challenged, whether his dispute was being processed, and whether
Defendant would ever contact him as directed. Consequently,
Plaintiff was denied the opportunity and ability to contest,
correct, or explain the information in the Consumer Report before
suffering the adverse action, the complaint asserts.

Denying Plaintiff employment, in whole or in part, based on
information in the Consumer Report is an adverse action which
creates an injury in law, the complaint contends. Defendant's
failure to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Consumer Report and
a summary of rights under the FCRA prior to taking adverse
employment action deprived Plaintiff of a critical opportunity to
understand his rights and review, contest, explain and/or dispute
the information being used against him. A further direct result of
Defendant's failure to abide by the FCRA adverse action process was
Plaintiff's loss of employment, wages, and benefits, adds the
complaint.

Plaintiff Corey Mike Day is a resident of Ferris, Texas. Plaintiff
was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant.

Defendant Lowe's Companies, Inc. is an American retail company
specializing in home improvement and hardware and can be served
through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, at 211
E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Courtney C. Washington, Esq.
     SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
     107 S. McGraw Ave.
     Forney, TX 75126
     Direct: 972-349-1906
     Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
     E-mail: cwashington@sirillp.com

MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Bid to Dismiss Bruns Class Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bruns v. Magellan
Midstream Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00080 (D. Okla.,
Filed Feb. 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. entered
an order denying the Defendants motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs complaint alleges that this is a putative class
action.

The Court has not certified the class to date. To move this matter
along, the Court orders counsel to consult and present the Court
with a proposal regarding how the parties plan to proceed on class
certification, including proposed deadlines, within fourteen days
of the date of this order.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

Magellan Midstream is an American energy pipeline operator.[CC]




MANZANA LLC: Class Certification Bid in Zavala Due by August 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zavala Martinez, et al.,
v. Manzana, LLC et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01900 (D. Conn., Filed
Dec. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

-- Completion of fact discovery: August 21, 2026

-- Motion for class certification due by August 21, 2026

-- Opposition to the motion for class certification due by
    September 11, 2026

-- Plaintiffs shall designate their expert witnesses and disclose

    their expert reports by September 18, 2026

-- Reply in support of the motion for class certification due by
    September 25, 2026

-- Plaintiffs shall complete the depositions of their expert
    witnesses by October 23, 2026

-- Defendants shall designate their expert witnesses and disclose

    their expert reports, including any rebuttal reports, by
    December 4, 2026

-- Defendants shall complete the depositions of their expert
    witnesses by January 8, 2027

-- All expert discovery shall close by January 8, 2027

-- If, after the close of discovery, the parties wish to meet with

    a Magistrate Judge to discuss settlement, the parties may
    jointly file such a request by January 14, 2027

-- Joint Status Report due by January 22, 2027

-- Dispositive motions due by February 5, 2027

-- Responses to dispositive motions due by February 26, 2027

-- Replies in support of dispositive motions due by March 12, 2027


-- The joint trial memorandum, including any motions in limine ,
    is due by May 7, 2027 , or thirty (30) days after the Court
    rules on any dispositive motions, whichever is later.

-- The trial ready date is June 7, 2027 , or thirty (30) days
    after the joint trial memorandum is filed, whichever is later.


The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Manzana is an agricultural labor contractor and staffing firm.[CC]

METHODE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form
10-K, for the period ending May 2, 2026, dated and delivered to the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2026, that it facing
two securities suit and a consolidated derivative action over its
disclosures.

On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March
6, 2024, inclusive, entitled "Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics,
Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the company, a former chief executive
officer, president and director of the company, and a former chief
financial officer of the company.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements relating to the company's
business, operations and prospects, including in respect of its
transition to production of more specialized components for
manufacturers of electric vehicles and its operations at its
facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified money damages along with equitable relief and costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

Another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar action
in the Northern District of Illinois on October 7, 2024 against the
same defendants in a case entitled "City of Cape Coral Municipal
General Employees Retirement Plan v. Methode Electronics, Inc., et
al." The second securities class action was filed on behalf of a
broader putative class of purchasers of its common stock between
December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024. After the cases were
consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed, defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety for failure to
state a claim.

On February 3, 2026, the judge presiding over the case granted
defendants' motion to dismiss but allowed plaintiff an opportunity
to file an amended complaint and set a schedule for briefing on any
motion to dismiss that amended complaint. Plaintiff subsequently
filed a second amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss
in its entirety for failure to state a claim, and that motion
remains pending.

Additionally, two purported stockholders filed derivative lawsuits
on November 26, 2024 and February 4, 2025, respectively captioned
entitled "Ray Homsi v. Donald Duda, et al." and "Kevin D. Murphy v.
Mark D. Schwabero, et al." They were filed on behalf of the company
in the the Northern District of Illinois against the current
members of its Board of Directors, as well as certain former
directors and executives. The complaints allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the company to issue
various statements that are alleged to have been false or
misleading for the same reasons alleged in the securities class
action complaints.

Methode Electronics Inc. is a global manufacturer of custom
engineered products and solutions, providing electronic and
electro-mechanical devices, components, and subsystem solutions for
automotive, industrial, and other end markets. The company designs
and supplies application-specific products that incorporate
advanced technologies to meet the needs of original equipment
manufacturers worldwide.

MISSISSIPPI: Filing for Class Cert in Crawford Due August 14
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Crawford, and all
others similarly situated, et al., v. Nathan Burl Cain,
Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections in his official
capacity, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00479-DPJ-ASH (S.D. Miss. ), the
Hon. Judge Andrew S. Harris entered case management order as
follows:

-- Non jury trial begins July 6, 2027

-- Pre-trial conference is set for June 11, 2027

-- All discovery must be completed by Jan. 25, 2027

-- Motion for class certification must be filed by Aug. 14, 2026

A copy of the Court's order dated June 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s89kly at no extra
charge.[CC]




NETPEAK USA: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Boudreaux Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIE BOUDREAUX, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETPEAK USA INC. D/B/A SERPSTAT
AND PROMOTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-00741-UNA (D. Del., June 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard
representative plaintiff's and/or Class Members' highly sensitive
private information stored within Defendant's information network,
including, without limitation, email, full name, county, billing
address, credit card brand, last four digits, expiration date,
payment amounts, transactions and refund history.

The complaint relates that the Defendant received highly sensitive
Private Information from Representative Plaintiff in connection
with the services Representative Plaintiff obtained. As a result,
Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed
by an unauthorized third party. While Defendant claims to have
discovered the breach as early as June 17, 2026, Defendant did not
begin informing victims of it until June 22, 2026, and failed to
inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred.
Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly
unaware of the Breach until they received letters from Defendant
informing them of it. The Notice received by Representative
Plaintiff was dated June 22, 2026.

Representative Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance,
interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and
has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well
as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and
selling Representative Plaintiff's Private Information, asserts the
complaint. Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending
injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud,
identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's
Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third
parties/criminals, says the suit.

With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated
persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack.

Representative Plaintiff Angie Boudreaux was a resident and citizen
of the State of Louisiana.

Defendants Netpeak USA Inc. d/b/a Serpstat and Promotions and
Development Group Corporation, is a for-profit enterprise located
in Dover, Delaware, provide marketers, businesses, and agencies
with powerful tools for data analysis and SEO automation.[BN]

The Representative Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dean R. Roland, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
     1000 N. West St., Suite 1500
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 984-3800
     E-mail: droland@coochtaylor.com

          - and -

     Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
     Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
     Mark T. Freeman, Esq.
     COLE & VAN NOTE
     555 12th Street, Suite 2100
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Telephone: (510) 891-9800
     E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
     E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com
     E-mail: mtf@colevannote.com
     E-mail: LegalDept@colevannote.com

NUTRIEN LTD: Red River Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Red River AG, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CANPOTEX
LTD.; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CF
INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF
INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS,
LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE; and
INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-04304 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on June 23, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01189-EFM-BGS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider
of crop inputs and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3080

OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: $70MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Oppenheimer Cash Sweep Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

vs.

OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC.,
OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and
OPPENHEIMER ASSET MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES


TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE OPPENHEIMER &
CO. INC.'S ADVANTAGE BANK DEPOSIT PROGRAM FROM MARCH 17, 2022
THROUGH MAY 22, 2026 ("CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Class
Representative, Liberty Capital Group, on behalf of itself and all
members of the Class, and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. ("Oppenheimer" or
"Defendant"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in
the class action (the "Action") in the amount of $70,000,000 (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff on
September 17, 2026, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom 14B of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing"), to determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the
"Net Settlement Fund") to Class Members; and (iv) approve Class
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date and time of the Settlement Hearing without providing another
notice. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any
changes to the date or time of the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com. You do
NOT have to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form,
you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website
for the Settlement, www.OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

Oppenheimer Cash Sweep Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Verita Global
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170
www.OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com
1-888-808-7104

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Stephen R. Astley
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
1-800-449-4900

If you are a member of the Class, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than September 17,
2026. If you are a member of the Class and do not timely submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it
is received no later than August 27, 2026. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than August 27, 2026.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, OPPENHEIMER, OR OPPENHEIMER'S
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 22, 2026    

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

The terms of the Settlement are in the Stipulation of Settlement,
dated May 13, 2026 (the "Stipulation"), which can be viewed at
www.OppenheimerCashSweepLitigation.com. All capitalized terms not
defined in this Summary Notice have the same meanings as defined in
the Stipulation.


PGMS LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Club Workers, Felix Says
--------------------------------------------------------
MAYULI LOPEZ FELIX Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff(s) v. PGMS, LLC d/b/a Playpen,
Defendant, Case No. 251035616 (11th Judicial Circ., Miami Dade Cty,
Fla., June 23, 2026) is a class and collective action against the
Defendant for recovery of unpaid wages, unlawfully withheld,
deducted, or assigned tips, and damages under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The complaint relates that during the Class Period, as a mandatory
condition for each shift, Defendant required Named Plaintiff and
Class Members to pay Defendant a "House Fee" or similar kickback,
fee, or charge, typically ranging between $25.00 - $50.00. Because
of Defendant's implementation and enforcement of the "Tip Out,"
Defendant did not permit Named Plaintiff or Class Members to keep
or retain all tips they received from Defendant' customers each
shift as exotic dancer entertainers within the Club.

Named Plaintiff and Class Members sustained similar losses,
injuries and damages arising from the same unlawful policies,
practices and procedures perpetrated by Defendant during the Class
Period, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Named Plaintiff and each Class Member seeks earned
and unpaid "free and clear" unpaid minimum wage compensation,
recoupment of unlawfully charged or deducted "House Fees" for all
hours and shifts within the Club during the Class Period, plus
statutory liquidated damages in an equal amount, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA and FMWA.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an exotic dancer entertainer
within the Club since about February 2025.

Defendant PGMS, LLC d/b/a Playpen owns and operates the Playpen
Gentlemen's Club located at 23101 South Dixie Highway, Miami,
Florida 33170.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rocco Scarfone, Jr., Esq.
     SCARFONE LAW GROUP
     2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 254
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Telephone: (561) 609-1200
     E-mail: Rocco@ScarfoneLawGroup.Com

          - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Telephone: (301) 587-9373
     E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com

POLY-WOOD LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. POLY-WOOD, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-5299 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.polywood.com/ to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May
7, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Estate Rocking Chair from
Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public.

Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods,
and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff MILTON WILLIAMS is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using his computer.

Defendant POLY-WOOD, LLC operates the Polywood online retail store,
as well as the Polywood interactive Website which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services including
information about Defendant's: electric bikes, as well as other
types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies
and internet pricing specials.[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

QUANTUM CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corp disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the
period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2026, that a shareholder class
action complaint was filed on September 4, 2025, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The complaint identifies Seung Lee as the plaintiff and names
Quantum Corporation and James J. Lerner, Kenneth P. Gianella, and
Laura Nash as defendants. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
related to certain disclosures made in the company's quarterly and
annual reports regarding its financial reporting for the third
quarter of its fiscal year 2025 and its restatement of that
financial reporting. The complaint sought to designate the
plaintiff as the lead plaintiff for the class and define a class
period of November 15, 2024 through August 18, 2025.

On January 27, 2026, a revised final complaint named Hunsu Son as
the lead plaintiff and reiterated the violations alleged in the
original complaint. The revised complaint seeks an award of
unspecified damages, costs, and expenses. The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the litigation. Briefing of that motion is
underway.

Additionally, the court ordered the separate Cullison and Marti
shareholder derivative complaints to be consolidated and stayed
pending final resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Lee shareholder class action litigation.

Quantum Corp is a data storage and management technology company
that provides solutions for unstructured data, including backup,
archive, and video surveillance workflows. The company serves
enterprise, cloud, government, and media customers worldwide.

STATE OF MARYLAND: Loses Bid to Defeat Overdetention Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Jamien Palmer, DeShawn Wilson, Clayton
Rogers, and Beatrice Elmore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of Maryland, et
al., Defendants, Civil No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA (D. Md.), United
States Magistrate Judge Charles D. Austin granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a suit alleging
unconstitutional overdetention at the Baltimore Central Booking and
Intake Center.

Four individuals filed this putative class action against the State
of Maryland, two of its agencies, and a former warden on behalf of
individuals allegedly held at Central Booking for unreasonable
periods after a commissioner or court ordered their release.
Plaintiffs alleged the median release time was eight hours and the
mean exceeded twelve hours, while DPSCS officials testified the
process should take no longer than four hours, averaging 2.5 hours
or less. Plaintiffs claimed more than 14,000 individuals, roughly
90 percent of detainees, were held longer than that four-hour
benchmark.

Plaintiffs proposed five subclasses measured from Record Staff
Approval Time to actual release, encompassing 14,249 allegedly
unconstitutional detentions, and sought certification under Rule
23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary
relief as an opt-out class.

The court found Plaintiffs met the implied ascertainability
requirement, since the class was readily identifiable through
Central Booking's objective records. On numerosity, the court found
the requirement easily satisfied given a potential class of at
least 14,249 members, which Defendants did not contest.

On commonality and typicality, the court found the class
representatives and members shared the same alleged injury,
unconstitutional overdetention flowing from the same practice at
Central Booking, and that individual variations in the
circumstances of each detention did not defeat the shared legal
theory. Defendants argued that causes and consequences of delay
varied by arrestee, affecting both defenses and damages, but the
court found these differences did not overcome commonality.

On adequacy, the court found no conflict of interest between the
named Plaintiffs and class members, since Plaintiffs sought only
flat-rate compensation tied to time overdetained rather than
individualized damages. The court also found Plaintiffs' counsel
adequate, citing their years of experience litigating related
claims, including in earlier Maryland Public Information Act
litigation that first surfaced the underlying records.

Turning to Rule 23(b), the court denied certification under Rule
23(b)(2). Plaintiffs relied on named Plaintiff DeShawn Wilson's
status as a recidivist to support classwide injunctive relief, but
the court found nothing indicated that all class members would or
were likely to be detained again, and offering only one of four
named Plaintiffs as an example undercut the argument.

The court granted certification under Rule 23(b)(3), finding common
questions predominated over individual issues. The court identified
two predominant questions: when the delay in releasing people
becomes unreasonable, and the value of each hour of overdetention.
Defendants argued individualized issues predominated because each
release involved circumstances peculiar to it, citing Seventh
Circuit authority denying certification on similar overdetention
claims. The court found this case more analogous to Driver v.
Marion County Sheriff and Judge Blake's certification in Murphy v.
City of Baltimore, since the challenge targeted a practice,
specifically the Warden's failure to enforce release-review policy
and mandatory medical visits, rather than individual circumstances.
The court also found Plaintiffs' proposed damages model, assigning
a value to each increment of overdetention, satisfied the
requirement that damages be capable of classwide measurement.

The court exercised its discretion to modify the proposed
subclasses. It found that detentions close to the alleged 2.5-hour
average were more likely to implicate individualized circumstances
than delays further past that mark, and eliminated the subclass
covering detentions of 2 to 2.5 hours. The court certified a
general class of individuals detained more than 2.5 hours after RS
Time following a release order, along with four amended subclasses
covering : 1,226, 1,072, 1,226, and 9,806 detentions i.e more than
13,000 in total, noting it may revisit the definitions if
adjustment becomes necessary.

Accordingly, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification with the amendments to the class definitions.

A copy of the Court's decision dated June 24, 2026 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfYm2C

SUZHOU EAVISION: Day Sues Over Drone Defects and Safety Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY C. DAY, JR., INC.; DANNY DAY, JR., individually and d/b/a
DANNY DAY, JR. FARMS; BRADLEY DAY, individually and d/b/a BRADLEY
DAY FARMS; and DANNY DAY, JR. & SON PARTNERSHIP, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUZHOU
EAVISION ROBOTIC TECHNOLOGIES ACTION CO., LTD.; E.A. VISION, INC.;
AGRI SPRAY DRONES, LLC; C4 DRONE SERVICES, LLC; TAYLOR MORELAND;
and DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-00100-KGB (E.D. Ark., June 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendants for damages and other relief arising from
defective EAVision JI 00 agricultural spray drones (the "JI 00" or
the "Drones") that Defendants designed, manufactured, distributed,
marketed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced, and that were sold to
farmers across the United States, including Plaintiffs.

The complaint relates that Agri Spray Drones markets and sells the
JI00 through its online storefront at shop.agrispraydrones.com
Before purchasing, Plaintiffs Danny Day, Jr. and Bradley Day
reviewed Defendants' sales and marketing materials describing the
Jl00 and its capabilities, including the representations online and
received sales presentations and assurances from Defendants'
representatives, including from Agri Spray Drones and from C4 Drone
Services through Peter Crouch, before they agreed to purchase the
Drones. They relied on those representations in deciding to
purchase the Drones. However, the J100 Drones failed to perform as
represented. Despite the representation that the J100 is "the only
spray drone with lidar" whose "obstacle avoidance and terrain
following outnumbers its competitors," Plaintiffs' Drones failed to
avoid obstacles and crashed; despite representations of "fine, even
atomization," the nozzles repeatedly failed to spray, and on
another occasion would not stop spraying; and despite the
representation that the batteries are "modular" and "can be
repaired," a Drone caught fire and burned.

Moreover, the Drones crashed repeatedly, before and after repair,
adds the complaint. At times the Drones would not fly at all.
Drones have crashed and caught fire. Crashing Drones have come
close to people, including Plaintiffs' employees. Crashing Drones
have struck and damaged equipment and structures and destroyed
crops. Each of these failures occurred in the ordinary course of
receiving, testing, operating, repairing, or handling the Drones on
Plaintiffs' farm, in proximity to Plaintiffs' personnel, equipment,
and structures. The Drones' failures caused actual physical damage
to property other than the Drones themselves, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class seek an award of punitive
damages.

Plaintiff Danny Day, Jr. doing business as Danny Day, Jr. Farms,
and his son Bradley Day doing business as Bradley Day Farms,
purchased two JI 00 Drones individually and on behalf of Danny C.
Day, Jr., Inc., an Arkansas corporation engaged in commercial
farming in Arkansas.

Defendant Suzhou EAVISION Robotic Technologies Co., Ltd. designed,
developed, and manufactured the JI 00, including its lidar and
obstacle-avoidance, wiring, battery and thermal, and spraying
systems, and placed the JI 00 into the stream of commerce intending
that it be sold to United States and Arkansas customers, including
through its U.S. partner Agri Spray Drones and the U.S. importer
E.A. Vision, Inc.

Defendant E.A. Vision, Inc. is the U.S. importer and distributor
that placed the JI 00 Drones into the stream of commerce in the
United States.

Defendant Agri Spray Drones, LLC markets, distributes, and sells
the J100 and administers the JI 00 warranty program.

Defendant C4 Drone Services, LLC  was the dealer/seller that
invoiced and delivered the Drones to Plaintiffs.

Defendant Taylor Moreland  is the founder and Chief Executive
Officer of Defendant Agri Spray Drones, LLC who personally
controlled and directed Agri Spray Drones' marketing of the J100
and personally made, approved, and directed representations
concerning the Jl00's capabilities.

Doe 1 through Doe 100 are the Defendants with fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
     PORTER & MALOUF, P.A.
     825 Ridgewood Road, Ridgeland, MS 39157
     P.O. Box 12768, Jackson, MS 39236
     Telephone: (601) 957-1173
     Facsimile: (601) 957-7366
     E-mail: tim@portermalouf.com

TATTOOED CHEF: $4.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINKO MIHAYLOV, JOHN HANCOCK, SHASHANK BAGUL, JOHN SPADARO,
MUSTAPHA HOTAIT, and MARCO STARACE, individually and on behalf of
all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

TATTOOED CHEF, INC., SALVATORE GALLETTI, STEPHANIE DIECKMANN,
and SARAH GALLETTI,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-09311-GW-E
SUMMARY NOTICE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) MOTION FOR AWARDS OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT HEARINGS

TO: (i) All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tattooed Chef common stock between December 15, 2020
through November 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
as set forth in detail in the settlement agreement for the Action
and the Notice described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, that a lawsuit
captioned Mihaylov v. Tattooed Chef, Case No. 2:22-cv-09311-GW-E
(C.D. Cal.) (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for
purposes of the settlement.

The parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement
("Settlement") in the amount of $4,750,000 in cash. If approved,
the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing
will be held in the Action on September 3, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable George H. Wu at the United States District
Court, First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 9D,
9th Floor, Los Angeles, California (the "Court"), to determine
whether: (i) the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the
settlement agreement (and in the Notice described below) should be
entered; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Settlement,
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) counsel's
applications for awards of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved.

The Settlement will not become effective until the Settlement
receives final approval from the Court, and has become final. If
approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights may be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the settlement proceeds. This notice provides
only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice
of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses and
Service Awards to the Lead Plaintiffs; and (III) Settlement Hearing
("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of both Notices, along with the
Claim Form, on the website for the Settlement,
www.TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain
copies of the detailed Notice and Claim Form by contacting the
Claims Administrator at Tattooed Chef Securities Settlement, c/o
Epiq, PO Box 4819, Portland, OR 97208-4819; 1-877-385-3187;
info@TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online at
www.TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com, no later than August 4,
2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim
Form. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit
a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Court for the Action, respectively.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 13, 2026,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the detailed
Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you will not be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Court for the Action, and you will not be eligible to share
in the net proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the
only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or
future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released
parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement.
Please note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself, you may be
time-barred from asserting certain of the claims covered by the
Action by a statute of repose or statute of limitations.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation (as contained in the Notice), and/or counsels' motions
for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted no later than
August 13, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the detailed Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICES, DEFENDANTS,
OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the counsel set forth below or the
Claims Administrator.

Requests for the detailed Notice and Claim Form should be made to
the Claims Administrator:

Tattooed Chef Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
PO Box 4819
Portland, OR 97208-4819
1-877-385-3187
info@TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com
www.TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to counsel as follows:

Inquiries for the Settlement should be directed to:

Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
1-858-914-2001
fab@bottinilaw.com

DATED: June 26, 2026

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Central District of California

URL: www.TattooedChefSecuritiesSettlement.com


VOLVO CAR: Court Dismisses Saleh Class Action w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURHAAN SALEH, v. VOLVO
CAR USA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-13300-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Salas entered a judgment that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss is granted.

The Plaintiff's claims are each dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Court finds that it
lacks standing over the Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the Court
declines to address the Defendant's remaining arguments with
respect to the Plaintiff's substantive allegations.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all similarly
situated persons who purchased or leased certain Volvo plug-in
hybrid models that were recalled and manufactured from the years
2020 through 2022, which the Plaintiff refers to as the "Class
Vehicles."

In June of 2022, the Plaintiff leased a 2020 Volvo XC60 T8 Polestar
Engineered Sport Utility 4D. In July of 2024, he purchased that
same vehicle.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 22, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tVRR68 at no extra
charge.[CC]

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, v. Sabree et
al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Linda V. Parker entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration and motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.

Wayne County fails to identify a palpable defect in the Court's
June 4, 2025 decision, the correction of which results in a
different disposition of this case. Wayne County also fails to show
that the Third Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

In the interim, Bowles and Taylor had filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted on January 14, 2022. Bowles,
2022 WL 141666. In that decision, the Court certified the following
class:

    "All property owners formerly owning property from within the
    counties of Wayne and Oakland who had said property seized by
    Defendants via the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et
    seq., which was worth more and/or was sold at tax auction for
    more than the total tax delinquency and was not refunded the
    excess/surplus equity, and this sale occurred before July 17,
    2020, but within three years of the filing of this lawsuit
    [i.e. Oct. 22, 2017], and excluding any property owner who has

    filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such
    relief."

On Oct. 22, 2020, Tonya Bowles filed this putative class action
lawsuit against the County of Wayne asserting claims arising from
the foreclosure and sale of her property due to a tax delinquency.
Bowles alleges that Wayne County sold the property at a sheriff's
sale for more than the tax delinquency but failed to return to her
the surplus proceeds (i.e., the amount exceeding the delinquency
after deducting appropriate interest, penalties, and fees).

Bowles, on behalf of a putative class, asserts a takings in
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.

Bowles owned property commonly known as 14730 East State Fair in
Detroit, Michigan.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z5CeSG
at no extra charge.[CC]

 


ZYMERGEN INC: Class Settlement in Wang Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BIAO WANG, et al., v.
ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class-action settlement as follows:

-- A settlement hearing shall be held before this Court on Oct.
    13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

-- All opening briefs and supporting documents in support of the
    Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or any application by
    Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to
    the Plaintiffs shall be filed and served no later than 35
    calendar days prior to the objection deadline, or Aug. 18,
    2026.

The initial complaint in this action was filed on Aug. 4, 2021. The
operative second amended complaint (SAC), which was filed on March
4, 2024, asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act, against various individuals and entities that allegedly
exercised control over Zymergen or were otherwise involved in the
alleged securities fraud.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss
the SAC on Aug. 14, 2024, allowing the section 11 claims to proceed
in full and allowing the section 15 claims to proceed except as to
a subset of defendant entities.

On Aug. 11, 2023, the Court certified a class consisting of:

    "persons and entities that purchase or otherwise acquired
    Zymergen common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
    registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with

    Zymergen's IPO."

Under the terms of the settlement, the settling defendants will
pay, or cause to be paid, $125 million into a settlement fund.

Zymergen was an American biotechnology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSlct2 at no extra
charge.[CC]



                            *********

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 ***