260708.mbx

260708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 8, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 135 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Varline Seeks Extension of for Class Cert Deadlines 5&2 STUDIOS: Fails to Pay Stockholders' Fair Value, Garabedian Says A2K INC: Faces Wright Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.M. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Dec. 7 ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Glenn Bid for Partial Summary Ruling Stricken ADOBE SYSTEMS: Monitors Web Visitor's Browsing Habits, Suit Says ADVOCATE AURORA: Seeks to File Docs in UPH Under Restricted Access ADVOCATE AURORA: Seeks to File Docs Under Restricted Access AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Briefing Schedule AKF INC: Stanley Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ALBERTSON'S LLC: To Ask Court to Set Briefing Schedule ALEX AND ANI: Hassid Must File Class Cert Bid by March 31, 2027 ALL-STAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Perez ADA Suit Over Access Barriers AMAZONFRESH LLC: Underpays Assistant Store Managers, Matthews Says AMBER SUNDQUIST: White Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals Decert. & Arbitration Order to 9th Circuit AMERICOLD REALTY: Settlement in Bracy Suit Gets Initial Nod AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Pulido Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. AMROCK LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Mangle ARCHSTONE BEHAVIORAL: Nee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation ASSETMARK INC: Faces Roma Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info AYA HEALTHCARE: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit BELLWETHER HARBOR: Wildnauer Balks at Use of Synthetic Fragrances BJ'S WHOLESALE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Jones Suit BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Sea-Doo Switch Recall Fails, Suit Claims BOWERY RESIDENTS: Seeks to File Opposition Papers by July 17 BRIAN ELLER: Watison Seeks OK of Class Cert Bid BUREAU OF PRISONS: Filing of Amended Complaint Due August 3 CABLE NEWS: D'Antonio Case Stayed Pending Resolution of Appeal CALIFORNIA: Stewart Appeals Class Certification Order to 9th Cir. CARVANA LLC: Faces Kisilev Class Suit Over Privacy Violations CERTEGY PAYMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Stachewicz Due Oct. 12 CERTEGY PAYMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines CHALLENGE MANUFACTURING: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach CHESTER A. ASHER: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHUBBY CATTLE: Kimbell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Butchers/Cooks CLAYTON & CRUME: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store CLEO AI: Appeals Motion to Stay Order in Hoover Suit to 3rd Circuit CLOUDFLARE INC: Sued Over Controller Recapitalization Transaction COMERICA BANK: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Trusty Due Oct. 26 COSTAR GROUP: FitFactariDC Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy CREDIT PROS: Gray Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info CRESTVIEW ADVISORS: LB Partners Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Seeks Collective Action Certification DAN DAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Cazares Suit Tossed DAVISON DESIGN: Class Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Initial Nod DELTA AIR: Devaney Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Hughes Suit Over Privacy Law Breaches DYSON INC: Hunter Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Refund Retention EDEN BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal Subscriptions EERO LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal EISEN INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Georgiou Alleges EPISOURCE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 17 FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert. Filing in Gillyard Due Jan. 11, 2027 FORD MOTOR: Miller Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification FORD MOTOR: Must File Partial Summary Judgment Support by August 5 FORD MOTOR: Opposition to Partial Summary Judgment Bid Due July 22 FUTU HOLDINGS: Faces Tang Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop GARY MERLINO: Schifano Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. GOODRX INC: Website Uses Interception Technologies, Erakat Says GOOGLE LLC: Order on Briefing Schedule in McGrath Suit Entered GOOGLE LLC: Order on Briefing Schedule in Nadeau Suit Entered GRAND CANYON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ogdon Due August 31 GUARANTEED RATE: Peters Bid for Class Discovery Tossed HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Toft Suit Dismissed, Defends Derivative Suits HERTZ GLOBAL: Class Wins Certification in Common Stock Suit HIFLOW VENTURES: Automatically Renews Subscription, Purscelley Says HP INC: Pattison Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Circuit HYATT CORP: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Mack Suit to 9th Circuit IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Maldonado Suit to 9th Cir. IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Ramirez Suit to 9th Circuit INFINITE COMPUTER: Starr Sues Over Breach of Insurance Agreement IPSWITCH INC: Fact Discovery Due Sept. 29 in Data Breach Suit JM SMUCKER: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification KASSIA DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says KETTERING ADVENTIST: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morefield Says KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KNOWBE4 INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Terminated KONICA MINOLTA : Cezus Wins Bid for Class Certification LANDS' END: Court Extends Case Deadlines in Meadows LIMITLESS X: Continues to Defend Quinn Class Suit in Oregon LOEWS CORP: Fraley Balks at Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Colombaro Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pitt Suit Alleges MARGIE QUIN: Class Certification Filing in Odeneal Due Oct. 30 META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek July 29 Class Cert Hearing METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Ohio Suit Seeks Declaration of CBA Rights MINNETONKA MOCCASIN: Bishop Sues Over Website's Access Barriers MINT MOBILE: McMullen Seeks Unpaid Wages for Automotive Detailers MISSOURI: Darrington Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd MONSANTO CO: Boylan Appeals Remand Order in King Suit to 8th Cir. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Brantmeier" Settlement Gets Prelim Court OK NBT BANCORP: Medina Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees NEW YORK: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal NOBU HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products NORTH STAR: Richardson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Contractors OREGON: Packaging Law "Unconstitutional," Lollicup USA Alleges ORVIS COMPANY: Tolentino Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. OSWEGO HEALTH: Transmits Web User's Personal Info to Third Parties PACIFIC MARKET: Hernandez et al. Sue Over Defective Stanley Product PASSCO COMPANIES: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Thompson Claims PEABODY ENERGY: McGeachy Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop PENINSULA ON JAMES: Faces Posa Suit Over Breach of Contract PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Exhibits PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Suit Seeks Class Certification PHARMERICA CORPORATION: "Lurry" Deal Has Final Court Approval PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement Class in Williams Gets Certification PHOK PRODUCTIONS: Yearwood Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Wolfclan Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid POD LLC: Urbina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation POLITICO LLC: Intercepts Website User's Communication, Suit Says PREFERRED BANK: Intercepts Website User's Communications, Suit Says PRIMA FRUTTA: Trial in Barrera Suit Set for August 17 PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Discovery in MOVEit MDL Ongoing PROPHASE LABS: GIPA Class Action Remains at Pleading Stage PROSPECT MEDICAL: Withholds Employer Contributions, Zweben Claims PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Calderon Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement RANGER STATION: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Bishop Says RDO EQUIPMENT: Faces Palacios Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wash. REBATH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Bathworks Suit REBOOT LABS: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store REGAL CINEMAS: Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed REPLIMUNE GROUP: Continues to Defend Jboor Class Suit RESIDENT HOME: Discloses Consumer Data to 3rd Party, Ramirez Says REWIRE NEWS: Intercepts Website User's Communication, Suit Alleges RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert. Hearing in Preciado Set for August 27 RXO LAST: Deprives Delivery Drivers' Wages, Mico Suit Alleges S. RAYS: Faces Bishop Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SAFEMOON LLC: Class Settlements in Combs Suit Get Initial Nod SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Price Fixing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over DRAM Price-Fixing Scheme SERENDIPITY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Tipped Workers SERGIO ALBARRAN: Sequen Wins Bid for Final Class Cert. SHERATON OPERATING: Seeks to Continue Deadline to File Opposition SIG SAUER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schreiber Due April 23, 2027 SINOVAC BIOTECH: MW Gestion Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. SOLVENTUM CORP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Johnson Alleges SPAMAZING INC: Wu FLSA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. SPECTRUM PHARMA: Settlement in Christiansen Gets Initial OK STANLEY BLACK: Faces Rothschild Class Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs STRIPING TECHNOLOGY: Osorio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Munoz Loses Bid to Remand Case SYSCO CORP: Matthews Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info TAN OAK: Nixon Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme TARGET CORP: Finek Sues Over Baby Wipes' Deceptive Marketing TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Full Self-Driving" Vehicles TEXT INC: Intercepts Consumer Data Thru LiveChat, Mejia Suit Claims THRYV INC: Hudson PTFA Suit Removed to D. Colo. TRAJECTOR INC: Quijada Suit Transferred to N.D. Fla. TRIVEST PARTNERS: 6th Cir. Flips Denial of Motion to Dismiss Hall TWIN HILL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Zurbriggen TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice UNITED AIRLINES: Hunsinger Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages UNITED NATURAL: Cruz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Selectors UNITED PARCEL: Kelly Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Arias Suit UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Dismissal of Meyer ERISA Class Action Affirmed VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Suit Moved from State Ct. to D.D.C. VENEZUELA: Must Respond to Cavara Amended Complaint by July 24 VILLAGE OF FREEPORT: Paulino Sues Over Seizures of Motor Vehicle WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Hicks Suit Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge WESTERN REFINING: Peoples Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. WHITE GLOVE: Faces Osinowo Suit Over Disability Discrimination WOMEN'S CENTER: ClassAction.org Probes Potential Data Breach Claims WRIGHT OF FLORIDA: Simms Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA WWW.FIFTYFLOWERS.COM INC: Senior Sues Over Website's Access Barrier XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Mitchell Says ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Tejada Sues Over Share Price Drop ********* 3M COMPANY: Varline Seeks Extension of for Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYDEN VARLINE ET. AL., v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Case No. 3:24-cv-00859-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of all 2026 class-certification related deadlines to allow for the orderly completion of expert depositions and the development of a complete record for class certification briefing. Under the proposed extension, the deadline to complete expert depositions related to class certification would be extended from July 22, 2026 to Aug. 21, 2026. All subsequent class-certification-related deadlines would be extended by a corresponding 30 days, as reflected in the table below. All deadlines set for 2027 would remain unchanged. Deadline Event June 30, 2026 The Plaintiff rebuttal expert reports on class-certification issues. Aug. 21, 2026 Complete expert depositions on class-certification issues Aug. 24, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class Oct. 16, 2026 Motions to exclude expert opinions related to class-certification Aug. 27, 2027 Discovery Cut-off The Defendant is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZXAG0W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot Rivera, Esq. Cristina M. Rodriguez, Esq. Gabriel M. Vazquez-Segarra NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC d/b/a NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: crodriguez@nsprlaw.com pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com gvazquez@nspralaw.com - and - Daniel Wayne Varline, Esq. DAVCZYK & VARLINE, LLC 1400 Merrill Avenue Wausau WI 54402-1192 Telephone: (715) 675-7777 E-mail: dvarline@dvlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Nessa H. Coppinger, Esq. Paula J. Schauwecker, Esq. Graham C. Zorn, Esq. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC 1900 N Street NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 789-6053 - and - Derek J. Waterstreet, Esq. VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C. 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 287-1519 - and - Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Adam I. Steene, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 5&2 STUDIOS: Fails to Pay Stockholders' Fair Value, Garabedian Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER GARABEDIAN, on behalf of himself and all other former stockholders of 5&2 Studios, Inc., Plaintiff v. 5&2 STUDIOS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0821 (Del. Ch., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of 8 Del. C. Section 155(2). According to the complaint, the Defendant violated Section 155(2) by failing to pay fair value to its stockholders in lieu of fractional shares after a reverse stock split that closed on March 30, 2026. The suit seeks to pay the Plaintiff and the Class members the difference between $3.75 per share and the fair value of the pre-split Series B Shares that were cashed out in the reverse split. 5&2 Studios, Inc. is an entertainment company and production studio based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. Robert B. Lackey, Esq. Peter C. Cirka, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 3411 Silverside Road Baynard Building, Suite 104 Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 499-2158 - and - Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1347 A2K INC: Faces Wright Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.M. -------------------------------------------------- LASHANETTE WRIGHT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A2K, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01945 (D.N.M., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and failure to provide sick leave in violation of the New Mexico Healthy Workplaces Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-based employees. A2K, Inc. is a for-profit corporation, with its principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Telephone: (713) 533-8171 (832) 233-7527 Facsimile: (713) 533-8193 Email: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Dec. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noriega v. Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 1:23-cv-04014-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order setting oral argument date on the class certification motion for Dec. 7, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1305 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York City. Abbott is a global healthcare and medical device company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ik5bcw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: acelli@ecbawm.com ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Glenn Bid for Partial Summary Ruling Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKKA GLENN, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00198-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Corrigan entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is stricken. The Plaintiff shall file a corrected motion no later than July 6, 2026, with changes limited to those referenced in her errata notices. At the upcoming hearing on pending motions, the Court intends to make further inquiry regarding the plaintiffs filing of a draft motion which appears to include a citation to a non-existent case and a non-existent quotation from another case. 2. No later than July 20, 2026, the defendants shall file a response to the plaintiff's corrected motion for partial summary judgment. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply to the Defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to class certification is granted. The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than July 6, 2026. 4. The undersigned has determined to hear argument on plaintiff's motion for class certification, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff's forthcoming corrected motion for partial summary judgment, on Aug. 27, 2026 at 10:00 A.m.. 5. The Court vacates the remainder of the current case schedule to be reset by future order as appropriate. Absolute has specialized in the purchase and recovery of distressed consumer receivables. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WebRXV at no extra charge.[CC] ADOBE SYSTEMS: Monitors Web Visitor's Browsing Habits, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:26-cv-06421 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2026) is a class action for violations of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and common law fraud to obtain compensation for the Defendant's misconduct, seek exemplary damages to punish Defendant for egregious behavior, and deter others from similar actions, to enjoin the Defendant's fraudulent practices, and for disgorgement of data unlawfully obtained, among other remedies. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant Adobe Systems Incorporated's website at https://www.adobe.com/, the Defendant displays a consent banner that provides every visitor, including Plaintiff, a choice as to whether they agree to be tracked by "cookies and similar technologies" such as Meta, LinkedIn, and TikTok. However, even if a visitor elects not to be tracked, Defendant allows both tracking technologies to be installed on visitor's computer, including data mining scripts from registered data brokers (the Data Broker Software). The Data Broker Software is comprised of advanced technology that accesses the computer of the website visitor to obtain information about the computer (and thus, the computer user). The Data Broker Software also adds small data files to computers visiting the Website so that Defendant can monitor visitor's browsing habits. The Plaintiff did not consent to having their computer accessed and used in this manner. In fact, Plaintiff did the opposite and opted out of tracking by any means. Even though Defendant affirmatively represents that users could browse the Website without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data broker (let alone by having their computer accessed and used for the purpose of commercial surveillance). Those representations are false. Due to the nature of Defendant's misrepresentation, consent cannot be provided or invalid as a matter of law, says the suit. Adobe is a American multinational computer software company headquartered in San Jose, California. Founded in 1982 by John Warnock and Charles Geschke, it revolutionized desktop publishing with PostScript and is globally recognized for industry-standard software suites like Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, and Adobe Acrobat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Chu, Esq. Jaimee Hocker, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: pchu@taulersmith.com jhocker@taulersmith.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Seeks to File Docs in UPH Under Restricted Access ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as URIEL PHARMACY HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN; AND URIEL PHARMACY, INC., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. and AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00610-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file documents under restricted access and response to the Plaintiffs' objections and motions to file under restricted access and their separately-filed (but identically named) objections and motion to file under restricted access. The Defendants request that the Court enter an order overruling the Plaintiffs' objections and permitting access to the documents to remain restricted to the Court and counsel for the parties. The Defendants also request that they be permitted fourteen days after the Court issues its decision on the pending motions to prepare any necessary public versions of documents such that those portions essential to the Court's decision are disclosed. These documents are deposition transcript excerpts of Defendants' witnesses or internal, confidential documents produced by Defendants. Public disclosure of this information would cause the Defendants harm because it would disclose the Defendants' internal analyses relating to the Defendants' competitors and third parties with whom the Defendants contract, thereby giving such parties a competitive advantage. Good cause exists to restrict access to this information, the suit says. Advocate was a massive, non-profit health system serving Illinois and Wisconsin. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QS65l3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel E. Conley, Esq. Nathan J. Oesch, Esq. Matthew Splitek, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277-5000 Facsimile: (414) 271-3552 E-mail: daniel.conley@quarles.com nathan.oesch@quarles.com matthew.splitek@quarles.com - and - Jane E. Willis, Esq. Rocky C. Tsai, Esq. Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Telephone: (617) 951-7000 Facsimile: (617) 951-7050 E-mail: jane.willis@ropesgray.com rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Seeks to File Docs Under Restricted Access ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK SHAW, DEBRA SHAW, and HALEY SHAW, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC. and AURORA HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00157-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file documents under restricted access and response to the Plaintiffs' objections and motions to file under restricted access and their separately-filed (but identically named) objections and motion to file under restricted access The Defendants request that the Court enter an order overruling the Plaintiffs' objections and permitting access to the documents to remain restricted to the Court and counsel for the parties. The Defendants also request that they be permitted 14 days after the Court issues its decision on the pending motions to prepare any necessary public versions of documents such that those portions essential to the Court's decision are disclosed. These documents are deposition transcript excerpts of the Defendants' witnesses or internal, confidential documents produced by Defendants. Public disclosure of this information would cause the Defendants harm because it would disclose the Defendants' internal analyses relating to the Defendants' competitors and third parties with whom the Defendants contract, thereby giving such parties a competitive advantage. Good cause exists to restrict access to this information., the suit says. Advocate was a massive, non-profit health system serving Illinois and Wisconsin. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EakjYu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel E. Conley, Esq. Nathan J. Oesch, Esq. Matthew Splitek, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 277-5000 Facsimile: (414) 271-3552 E-mail: daniel.conley@quarles.com nathan.oesch@quarles.com matthew.splitek@quarles.com - and - Jane E. Willis, Esq. Rocky C. Tsai, Esq. Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Telephone: (617) 951-7000 Facsimile: (617) 951-7050 E-mail: jane.willis@ropesgray.com rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucas Rougeau, et al., v. Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Aug. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting motion to Amend Briefing Schedule in large part with a couple of modifications. First, the court is not persuaded that the parties' proposal for motions on experts will work with the consolidated briefing and is concerned about multiple motions on the same expert. To address this issue, the court will reset the deadlines for motions on experts and set consolidated page limits. Second, with the class certification deadlines moving again, this leaves less than two months before the dispositive motion deadline, which is not a realistic amount of time given the complexity of this case. The parties say they need this extension, but the court needs sufficient time to rule on class certification before the next milestone. Given these considerations, the remainder of the case schedule is struck, to be reset upon the court ruling on class certification. With these points in mind, the court adopts the parties' proposed deadlines and consolidated briefing plan and SETS the following deadlines and consolidated briefing plan for motions on experts: -- The Defendants' motions on plaintiffs' experts due Oct. 23, 2026. -- Plaintiffs' motions on defendants' experts due Nov. 23, 2026. -- Responses on the motions are due 30 days later, and any replies 14 days later. -- The parties must coordinate amongst themselves and file one consolidated motion per expert. -- Motions on experts and responses are limited to 15 pages, and any replies to 5 pages. -- The parties have filed a motion to extend the briefing schedule for class certification. -- The case has already been reset twice, but if ever there was a case that required some extra time, this putative class action is likely it. There are 48 plaintiffs, 3 possible subclasses of plaintiffs, and 4 different sets of defendants. The parties report there are as many as 17 different experts across multiple disciplines. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Ahlstrom operates a major specialty fiber and paper manufacturing facility.[CC] AKF INC: Stanley Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER PARKER STANLEY and PARKER, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AKF, INC. d/b/a FUNDKITE; ALEX SHVARTS; MEDIATION AND CIVIL ARBITRATION, INC. d/b/a RAPIDRULING; ZACHARY MEYER; and ANDREW SACHS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05088 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, New York usury law, and New York General Business Law, common-law fraud, unjust enrichment/money had and received, and, in the alternative, breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful debt collection practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants' collection of unlawful debt included Automated Clearing House debits, account statements, breach notices, reconciliation refusals, acceleration of alleged balances, breach administration fees, Uniform Commercial Code remedies, arbitration notices, Rapid Ruling arbitration demands, and threats of legal enforcement. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the Plaintiffs and the Class were injured in their business or property. Parker, Inc. is a home building and renovation contractor based in Cynthiana, Kentucky. AKF, Inc., doing business as FundKite, is a business funding provider based in New York, New York. Mediation and Civil Arbitration, Inc., doing business as RapidRuling, is a private arbitration company based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane R. Heskin, Esq. HESKIN & PROPER, PLLC 641 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (917) 362-1313 Email: shane@heskinproper.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: To Ask Court to Set Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL HARO on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02120-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 27, 2026, will move the Court to specially set a briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which is due no later than Sept. 28, 2026 under the Court's Scheduling Order. Under the default schedule, it would be impossible for the Defendants (or Plaintiff) to conduct and complete written declarant-based discovery and all declarant depositions under the default motion briefing schedule and incorporate such evidence into their briefing. Permitting the Defendant to be able to complete this declarant-based discovery once the Plaintiff files his Motion under an extended briefing schedule will ensure that necessary discovery is completed and the factual issues are thoroughly briefed before this Court rules on class certification. Thus, the Defendants request that the Court set a proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion to account for this anticipated discovery as follows: the Defendants would propose that the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be due 60 days after the Plaintiff files his Motion, and that the Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion be due 30 days after the Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion. Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELXDz9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Brian M. Noh, Esq. Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com bnoh@reedsmith.com thendershot@reedsmith.com ALEX AND ANI: Hassid Must File Class Cert Bid by March 31, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILAN HASSID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALEX AND ANI, LLC, a Rhode Island limited liability company; THE BATHING CLUB LLC, a New York limited liability company; LMGL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MLLG LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LC A&A HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 5 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00679-FMO-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order granting the stipulation to continue discovery deadline as to newly named Defendants and deadline to file motion for class certification as follows: 1. Discovery limited to the newly named defendants (The Bathing Club LLC, LMGL LLC, MLLG LLC, and LC A&A Holdings Inc.) shall be completed no later than Feb. 26, 2027. 2. The Plaintiff Milan Hassid shall file his motion for class certification no later than March 31, 2027. Alex and Ani is an American retailer and producer of jewelry located in Cranston, Rhode Island. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IwY44Q at no extra charge.[CC] ALL-STAR MANAGEMENT: Faces Perez ADA Suit Over Access Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALL-STAR MANAGEMENT, INC., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a ALL-STAR MANAGEMENT, INC. NUMBERS 1-52, Case No. 1:26-cv-07478 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated wheelchair users to compel Defendant to: (i) remediate all access barriers within the Parking Areas of Defendant's Facilities, and (ii) modify their existing policies to ensure that Defendant's Facilities comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) implementing regulations' excessive sloping requirements. The Plaintiff's claims arise from his own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps (Parking Area) at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by Defendant. The Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff and others similarly situated mobility impaired persons by implementing policies and practices that consistently violate the ADA's accessibility guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at Defendant's Facilities, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs to redress Defendant's unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of ADA. Mr. Perez is a T6/T8 Paraplegic and has been using a wheelchair for the last 35 years. In August of 1991, Mr. Perez suffered a gunshot wound, which caused his injury and disability. The Plaintiff's disability requires him to use a wheelchair. The Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates at least 35 Wendy's restaurants in the states of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON LAW FIRM, LLC 6615 Grand Ave., PMB 423 Gurnee, IL 60031 Telephone: (224) 548-0855 E-mail: rjohnsonada@gmail.com AMAZONFRESH LLC: Underpays Assistant Store Managers, Matthews Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TREVOR MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZONFRESH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02113 (W.D. Wash., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Amazon in Washington as an assistant store manager (ASM) from approximately August 2020 to November 2025. AmazonFresh LLC is an operator of grocery stores in the U.S., with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristopher Bonham, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 1700 Palm Beach Lakes, Suite 500 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 812-1547 Facsimile: (561) 812-1571 Email: kbonham@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2069 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5355 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com AMBER SUNDQUIST: White Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DAVID WHITE, v. AMBER SUNDQUIST, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00543-MO (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mosman entered an order dismissing the amended complaint, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. The pending motion to certify class is denied. The Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights case on March 20, 2026. He purported to bring his case as a class action wherein he was representing himself and other prisoners he named as additional parties to the Complaint. On May 7, 2026, the Court summarily dismissed the Complaint, in part, because the Plaintiff was improperly attempting to represent other prisoners in this matter. The Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 15, 2026. However, he continues to plead this case as a class action on behalf of himself and other prisoners. Because the amended complaint continues to plead claims on behalf of other prisoners, it suffers from the same deficiency the Court previously identified fails to state a viable claim for pleading purposes. The dismissal is without further leave to amend. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=79VPPA at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals Decert. & Arbitration Order to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to decertify classes and motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Dennis MacDougall, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01079-JGB-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Property Damage. On Apr. 20, 2026, the Defendant file a motion to decertify classes and motion to compel arbitration, Judge Jesus G. Bernal denied on May 14, 2026. The appellate case is styled as MacDougall, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3888, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 16, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on June 29, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 29, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 8, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 7, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT, LLP 10 N. Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 - and - Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Moze Cowper, Esq. COWPER LAW, LLP 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303 Los Angeles, CA 90025 - and - Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. Theodore B. Bell, Esq. MASON & PERRY, LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 - and - Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC (NY) 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Defendants-Appellants AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al. are represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Fred J. Fresard, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 89 Kercheval Avenue Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236 - and - John Christopher Mitchell, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 AMERICOLD REALTY: Settlement in Bracy Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMONT BRACY, JALISA SAMUELS, SEAN SHEFFLER, BRANDEN TURNER, BRANDICE TURNER, JOSEPH VINCENT, and BELINDA GOSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICOLD REALTY TRUST, INC., and AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05743-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered a preliminary approval order. 1. The Court has determined the proposed Settlement satisfies the criteria for preliminary approval, the proposed Settlement Class should be preliminarily certified, and the proposed notice plan approved. 2. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who were notified by Americold that their Private Information was impacted in the Data Incidents." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Americold, any entity in which Americold has a controlling interest, and Americold's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (b) any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over the Bracy Action and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (c) any individual who timely and validly opts out of the Settlement. 3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Lamont Bracy, Jalisa Samuels, Sean Sheffler, Branden Turner, Brandice Turner, Joseph Vincent, and Belinda Goss as Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. 4. The Court appoints the following attorneys as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class: MaryBeth V. Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC; Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC; Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group. 5. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before the Court on Oct. 6, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Americold is an American temperature controlled warehousing and transportation company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yevjNc at no extra charge.[CC] AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Pulido Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case CARLOS PULIDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, CENCORA, INC., AMERISOURCEBERGEN SERVICES CORPORATION, AMERISOURCEBERGEN SPECIALTY GROUP, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2602511, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 22, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03429 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is a drug wholesaling company based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. Cencora, Inc. is a pharmaceutical wholesale, distribution, and solutions company, headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. AmerisourceBergen Services Corporation is a pharmaceutical services provider based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, LLC is a distributor of specialty pharmaceuticals based in Frisco, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Michelle L. Quach, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com michelle.quach@morganlewis.com AMROCK LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Mangle ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON MANGLE, AMY BRYAN, CRAIG BRYAN, AMANDA HUTCHINSON, and DANIEL HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. AMROCK LLC et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06025-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' motions for class certification are dismissed. 3. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs on all counts. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Amrock is a national title insurance, property appraisal, and settlement services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=18uW6V at no extra charge.[CC] ARCHSTONE BEHAVIORAL: Nee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime & Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- NUYKA NEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHSTONE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, PRESTIGE EMPLOYEE ADMINISTRATORS, LLC, SHEAKLEY HR LLC, ARYEH GARBACZ, and MOSHE YACHNES, Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80722 (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a primary therapist and, at times, as acting lead therapist from approximately September 16, 2024 through January 26, 2026. Archstone Behavioral Health, LLC is a rehabilitation center based in Lantana, Florida. Prestige Employee Administrators, LLC is a professional employer organization based in Melville, New York. Sheakley HR LLC is a human resources firm based in Chandler, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, PA 7951 SW 6th St., Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com ASSETMARK INC: Faces Roma Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL POMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSETMARK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-06017 (S.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on May 15, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Assetmark, Inc. is a leading wealth management company based in Concord, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com AYA HEALTHCARE: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. filed on June 16, 2026, a petition for writ of mandamus and-or prohibition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 26-3867, in connection with an Order in the lawsuit entitled Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego, Case No. 3:22-cv-1151, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Paul Whitfield Hughes, III, Esq. Sarah Hogarth, Esq. Mary Schnoor, Esq. Grace Wallack, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE, LLP 500 N. Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Paul Gamboa, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1 North Wacker, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 BELLWETHER HARBOR: Wildnauer Balks at Use of Synthetic Fragrances ----------------------------------------------------------------- TINA WILDNAUER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLWETHER HARBOR INVESTMENTS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02216 (W.D. Wash., June 25, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking remedies for its practice of employing synthetic fragranced consumer products in it facilities despite knowledge of discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant claims to offer facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Representative Plaintiff asserts that the effects of these Synthetic fragranced consumer products adversely affect all human beings but, for those with recognized disabilities such as fragrance/chemical and/or multiple chemical sensitivities, autism, and so on, the fear, apprehension and emotional distress alone of coming into contact with fragrance can be intense, as are the physiological manifestations predictably attendant to the exposure. Bellwether Harbor Investments LLP is a business that maintains lodging and restaurant facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (310) 709-9749 E-mail: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.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 lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com BJ'S WHOLESALE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Jones Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN R. JONES, v. BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01012-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: 1. No later than July 1, 2026, the parties must file on ECF either a fully executed Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form, or a joint letter advising the Court that the parties do not consent, but without disclosing the identity of the party or parties who do not consent. 2. Judge Moses will conduct a status conference on Oct. 27, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. No later than Oct. 20, 2026, the parties must submit a joint status letter outlining the progress of discovery to date, as well as any settlement efforts. If no discovery controversies exist at that time, the parties may request that the conference be held telephonically. 3. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. The Defendant operates as a warehouse club. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tTMn4 at no extra charge.[CC] BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Sea-Doo Switch Recall Fails, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Bombardier Recreational Products has failed to provide an effective repair for Sea-Doo Switch pontoon boats sold with a dangerous design defect that can cause the vessels to capsize under normal operating conditions. The 31-page complaint contends that Bombardier has misrepresented its jet-powered Sea-Doo Switch pontoon boats as safe, seaworthy recreational vessels despite knowing about and failing to correct a design defect that can allow water to accumulate in the Switch's center hull, causing the vessel to nose-dive, capsize and throw passengers into the water. According to the case, a recall issued in February 2025 and subsequent safety repairs have failed to address the underlying defect, leaving the Sea-Doo Switch boats unsafe for their intended use. Per the lawsuit, the Sea-Doo Switch—which includes the Switch, Switch Cruise, Switch Cruise Limited, Switch Sport and Switch Fish trims—uses a triple-pontoon design consisting of two foam pontoons alongside a center motor hull and a forward bow deflector. Although the foam pontoons provide buoyancy, the design allows water to flow forward and collect in the forward bow deflector, weighing the vessel down, the suit alleges. The case claims that when passengers are seated near the bow, or front, this buildup of water can cause the front of the boat to submerge, nose-dive and capsize. Even when passengers are distributed elsewhere in the vessel, the suit claims that rearward-flowing waves generated by the hull can lift the stern and force the bow underwater, producing the same dangerous outcome. The lawsuit states that since the Switch's introduction to the market in 2022, there have been multiple Sea-Doo Switch capsizing incidents due to the defect, resulting in severe injuries and fatalities. According to the complaint, Bombardier first acknowledged the defect in February 2025 by recalling model year 2022 to 2025 Sea-Doo Switch boats, warning that improper distribution of weight could overload the front of the vessel and potentially cause it to capsize. The Sea-Doo Switch recall represented that the issue could be fixed through the application of sealant to the hull (with the exception of 2025 models) and the addition of warning labels, which the company would perform for free, the case notes. However, the lawsuit alleges, this remedy failed to eliminate the underlying defect and capsizing incidents continued to occur. The suit contends that Bombardier effectively conceded that the first repair was inadequate when it issued an updated recall notice in October 2025 stating that a component of the previous repair "may not perform to our expectations for durability." The updated Sea-Doo Switch recall notice instructed owners of affected boats, including 2025 and 2026 models, to have the sealant on the hull replaced with three gaskets or, if the boat already had gaskets, to have them inspected, the suit relays. According to the complaint, this repair also failed to address the design flaw. Finally, in May 2026, the suit says, Bombardier notified owners that they could install an Intelligent Balance Assist (iBA) sensor and software update intended to improve calibration and reduce the risk of capsizing. According to the complaint, the installation of the iBA system was not required for safe vessel use and was merely provided to consumers as an additional safety measure on top of what the company had already offered. The lawsuit argues, however, that even the iBA update did not correct or eliminate the design defect in the Sea-Doo Switch. "The defect is in the hull design and the wave the hull generates, which causes stern lift and bow drop," the complaint asserts. "This design defect is not remedied via any of the recalls or notices that Sea-Doo has sent to owners and cannot be remedied absent a complete re-design of the Sea-Doo Switch boats." The case claims that Bombardier was aware or should have been aware of the defect long before the boats were put on the market through pre-sale testing, engineering analyses and other standard product-development practices. The company also failed to disclose to consumers that its recall repairs were ineffective and instead led them to believe that the remedies would significantly lower the risk of capsizing, the complaint claims. Despite this alleged knowledge, Bombardier continued marketing its Sea-Doo Switch pontoon boats as safe, luxurious vessels worth their starting price tags of $24,799 to $52,499, the lawsuit alleges. The Bombardier class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals and entities who purchased a Sea-Doo Switch boat in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BOWERY RESIDENTS: Seeks to File Opposition Papers by July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yearwood v. Bowery Residents' Committee, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00581-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order that the Defendant's deadline for opposition papers be set as July 17, 2026 and the Plaintiff's deadline for reply papers be set as July 31, 2026. If granted, this extension will not affect any other scheduled dates or existing deadlines. On June 12, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a provider of housing and services to thousands of New York City's individuals in need. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygRcjM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jason A. Zoldessy, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, 28th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 545-4021 E-mail: Jason.Zoldessy@jacksonlewis.com BRIAN ELLER: Watison Seeks OK of Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond Watison, et al., v. Brian Eller et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00256-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZbCBDC at no extra charge.[CC] BUREAU OF PRISONS: Filing of Amended Complaint Due August 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JONASSEN, V. BOP, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00084-BSM-ERE (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: 1. Mr. Jonassen's motion is granted solely to the extent that Mr. Jonassen may now have until Aug. 3, 2026 to file his amended complaint. 2. Mr. Jonassen's requests for a stay, class certification, and court-appointed counsel are denied. Mr. Jonassen makes no effort to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, as he must for the Court to even take up the issue of class certification. And Mr. Jonassen has demonstrated that he can present and pursue his case. It is understandable that Mr. Jonassen would prefer to be assisted by court-appointed counsel, but his desire for counsel alone is not the only factor the Court must consider. After considering all relevant factors, the Court declines to appoint counsel at this point in the case. BOP is responsible for all federal prisons in the country and provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEdn4R at no extra charge.[CC] CABLE NEWS: D'Antonio Case Stayed Pending Resolution of Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY D'ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03132-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marrero entered an order granting the motion to stay further proceedings pending resolution of interlocutory appeal. The Court stays the case until the Ninth Circuit's resolution in Drummer. The Court finds that a stay pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal in Drummer, is justified. The Court agrees that proceeding with discovery would be expensive and time-consuming, and that this consideration weighs slightly in CNN's favor. Although the Court cannot predict the exact date on which the Ninth Circuit will render a decision, this stay would be in effect for a discrete period of time. Accordingly, any prejudice D’Antonio would face in the expeditious resolution of the case is outweighed by the other compelling interests detailed above The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Cable News is an American multinational news media company A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F0NDAQ at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Stewart Appeals Class Certification Order to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN STEWART, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their third motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Kevin Stewart, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Robert Luna, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04641, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Civil Rights Act. On Dec. 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a third motion to certify class, which Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied on June 2, 2026. As the Court has given the Plaintiffs several opportunities to correct their failed attempts, the denial is with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Kevin Stewart, et al. v. Robert Luna, et al., Case No. 26-3895, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN STEWART, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Jeff Dominic Price, Esq. JDP PC 23465 Civic Center Way, No. 9 Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (310) 451-2222 Email: jdp@jdpfirm.com Defendants-Appellees ROBERT LUNA, et al. are represented by: Justin Clark, Esq. LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 150 S. Los Robles Ave., Ste. 660 Pasadena, CA 91101 CARVANA LLC: Faces Kisilev Class Suit Over Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS KISILEV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05620 (W.D. Wash., June 10, 2026) alleges violations of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The Plaintiff received a commercial text message from Carvana in May of 2026. He never gave permission for Carvana to send this message. The message has invaded Plaintiff's privacy diminished the value of his phone, and negatively impacted his enjoyment of life. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Carvana accountable for its illegal practices. Carvana, LLC is a car retailer based in Tempe, AZ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Alvord, Esq. Reid Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 450 Alaskan Way S Suite 200 # 1823 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (385) 440-4127 E-mail: thomas@thehqfirm.com CERTEGY PAYMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Stachewicz Due Oct. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stachewicz v. Certegy Payment Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258 (C.D. Ill., Filed July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery: Accordingly, the Court adopts the deadlines set forth in the parties'90 motion, including the following: (1) Plaintiff's data science expert disclosure and report deadline is July 1, 2026; (2) Certegy's rebuttal expert disclosure and report deadline is August 25, 2026; (3) The deadline to depose Plaintiff's data science expert and Certegy's rebuttal expert is September 22, 2026; (4) Fact discovery must be completed by September 22, 2026; (5) Deadline to file renewed motions for summary judgment and class certification is October 12, 2026; (6) Deadline to file oppositions to renewed motions is November 16, 2026; and (7) Deadline to file replies in support of renewed motions is December 13, 2026. All deadlines set forth in the Court's April 21, 2026 Minute Entry are vacated. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Certegy provides check verification and risk management services.[CC] CERTEGY PAYMENT: Parties Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN STACHEWICZ, Successor in Interest to Nancy Stachewicz, deceased, v. CERTEGY PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of modified discovery deadlines: The parties seek a 60-day extension of discovery, dispositive motion, and class certification motion deadlines set forth in the Court's Order dated April 21, 2026. The Parties propose the following revised schedule: July 1, 2026 – The Plaintiff's data science expert disclosure and report deadline Aug. 25, 2026 – Certegy's rebuttal expert disclosure and report deadline Sept. 22, 2026 – Deadline for the deposition of the Plaintiff's data science expert and deposition of Certegy's expert related to a rebuttal report (if any) Sept. 22, 2026 – Fact Discovery Completed Oct. 12, 2026 – Deadline to File Renewed Motions Nov. 16, 2026 – Deadline to File Oppositions to Renewed Motions Dec. 13, 2026 – Deadline to File Replies in Support of Renewed Motions The parties have been diligent in the discovery process since the reopening of the discovery period but have faced unexpected delays. In late Spring 2026, the father of the Plaintiff's counsel passed away, requiring counsel to travel out of office to the United Kingdom for multiple weeks. During this time, the parties were unable to work towards completing the outstanding discovery items. Additionally, the Plaintiff's data science expert ran into issues with the data Certegy previously produced, requiring a reproduction and causing some delays in the expert's ability to conduct its analysis. Good cause exists for an extension of the fact discovery deadline to allow the parties to conduct discovery as to the issues raised in the Court's April 21 and 27, 2026 Orders, the Court says. Certegy provides check verification and risk management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DsBH8g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300 Skokie, IL 60077 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com The Defendant is represented by: David M. Gettings, Esq. Kathleen M. Hutchenreuther, Esq. Erin E. Edwards, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 E-mail: dave.gettings@troutman.com kathleen.hutchenreuther@troutman.com erin.edwards@troutman.com CHALLENGE MANUFACTURING: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Challenge Manufacturing data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Challenge Manufacturing data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Challenge Manufacturing Security Incident: What Happened? Challenge Manufacturing, an automotive supplier operating nationwide, has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. In a report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office on June 26, 2026, it was disclosed that names, Social Security numbers, and medical information may have been exposed in the Challenge Manufacturing data breach. Notice was provided to potentially affected individuals by mail. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the nature or scope of the breach was available. What You Can Do After the Challenge Manufacturing Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Challenge Manufacturing data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Challenge Manufacturing to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CHESTER A. ASHER: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHESTER A. ASHER, INC., d/b/a ASHER'S CHOCOLATE CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04910 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's ADA violations arises from its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its e-commerce website, www.ashers.com in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Chester A. Asher, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers chocolate confections, chocolate-covered snacks, boxed chocolate assortments, seasonal confections, sugar-free chocolate products, and gift assortments for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CHUBBY CATTLE: Kimbell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Butchers/Cooks --------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIQUE KIMBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHUBBY CATTLE THE INTERLOCK ATLANTA LLC and CHUBBY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03486-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a butcher/cook at Wagyu House Atlanta in Georgia since September 2024. Chubby Cattle the Interlock Atlanta LLC is a restaurant owner and operator located in Atlanta, Georgia. Chubby Group is a food and beverage holding company located in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. Joseph Quattlebaum, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com joseph@hallandlampros.com CLAYTON & CRUME: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLAYTON & CRUME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05212 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Civil Rights Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law, and declaratory judgment. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.claytonandcrume.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Clayton & Crume, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CLEO AI: Appeals Motion to Stay Order in Hoover Suit to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CLEO AI INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying in part its motion to stay this matter pending arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Karen Hoover, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cleo AI Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01067, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Loan Interest and Protection Law, Consumer Discount Company Act, Truth-in-Lending Act, and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. On Apr. 6, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to stay pending arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss for incorrect venue, which Judge Karoline Mehalchick granted in part and denied in part on May 29, 2026. Cleo's motion is granted regarding Cedric Lenox and Jed Reifer's claims, and the Court stays this matter pending arbitration as related to those claims. However, the Court denies Cleo's motion regarding Mark Cave and Cave may proceed with his claims. The appellate case is styled as Karen Hoover, et al. v. Cleo AI Inc., Case No. 26-2483, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN HOOVER, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Defendant-Appellant CLEO AI INC. is represented by: Stephen J. Shapiro, Esq. VICTOR RANE 2005 Market Street, Suite 3120 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 297-2249 CLOUDFLARE INC: Sued Over Controller Recapitalization Transaction ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITIES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME LIMITED (ACTING AS THE SOLE CORPORATE TRUSTEE OF THE UNIVERSITIES SUPERANNUATION SCHEME), Plaintiff v. MATTHEW PRINCE, MICHELLE ZATLYN, SCOTT SANDELL, KARIM LAKHANI, KATRIN SUDER, STACEY CUNNINGHAM, JOHN GRAHAM CUMMING, MARK HAWKINS, CARL LEDBETTER, and CLOUDFLARE, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2026-0844 (Del. Ch., June 26, 2026) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated Class A common stockholders of Cloudflare, Inc., challenging a proposed conflicted controller recapitalization transaction against the Company's co-founders controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn, as well as the seven other members of the board of directors. This action challenges the Recapitalization, a conflicted controller transaction specifically designed to allow Cloudflare's co-founders and controlling stockholders to continue to liquidate massive amounts of their equity while retaining majority voting control of the Company. Since the Company's IPO in 2019, the co-founders have controlled Cloudflare's voting power, primarily through ten-vote-per-share Class B common stock. Over the past several years, however, the co-founders sold massive amounts of Company stock, threatening to push them below the majority threshold, says the suit. On June 9, 2026, the Company filed a definitive Proxy seeking stockholder approval of the Recapitalization, which would (i) amend Cloudflare's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to create a new class of nonvoting Class C common stock and (ii) authorize a new Series FF preferred stock carrying nine votes per share and no economic interest, to be issued to the Co-Founders in exchange for substantially all of their Class B shares. As a result, the Recapitalization provides the Co-Founders a nonratable benefit—the ability to sell massive amounts of equity while maintaining control. Nevertheless, the Recapitalization proposal only requires the affirmative vote of the holders of the Company's outstanding common stock. The Recapitalization is not entirely fair, as it was recommended by conflicted directors and cements the co-founders' control with minimal restrictions on potentially billions of dollars' worth of stock sales and no compensation to unaffiliated stockholders, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in this action to halt the unfair, power entrenching Recapitalization. Cloudflare, Inc. is a global cloud services and cybersecurity provider headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. Aasiya Mirza Glover, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8002 E-mail: daniel@jvk-law.com COMERICA BANK: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Trusty Due Oct. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT TRUSTY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, Case No. 5:25-cv-03318-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kato entered an order granting the first stipulated request for extension of time and to set briefing schedule for class certification. The Court enters the following schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Event Date Class certification motion and expert Oct. 26, 2026 disclosure and report production deadline: The Defendant's rebuttal expert disclosure Dec. 2, 2026 and report production deadline: Deadline to depose experts: Dec. 18, 2026 Class certification response deadline: Jan. 18, 2027 Class certification reply deadline: Feb. 12, 2027 The Plaintiff's class certification reply shall be limited to the existing record, including the Parties' expert reports and deposition testimony, and to arguments made in the Defendant's response. The Plaintiff shall not submit with or in support of its reply any additional expert report, declaration, opinion, or other evidence, unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties. Comerica is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Otutqc at no extra charge.[CC] COSTAR GROUP: FitFactariDC Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- FitFactariDC, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTAR GROUP, INC.; CBRE GROUP, INC.; JONES LANG LASALLE INCORPORATED; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD PLC; COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC.; COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL USA, LLC; and NEWMARK GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06997 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2026) challenges a hub-and-spoke conspiracy among competing commercial real estate brokers and landlords to exchange current, non-public, deal-specific lease information through a dominant data intermediary, resulting in supra-competitive rents paid by commercial tenants. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendant CoStar Group, Inc. facilitated and orchestrated the exchange of confidential, property-level lease transaction terms--including effective rents, concessions, and other lease economics--among competing brokers and landlords. Moreover, Defendants CBRE Group, Inc., Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, Cushman & Wakefield plc, Colliers International Group Inc., and Newmark Group, Inc. knowingly submitted competitively sensitive lease data to CoStar to access competitors' similarly sensitive data. As a result of the conspiracy, the Defendants eliminated the uncertainty that ordinarily promotes price competition in industrial, office, and retail leasing markets, says the suit. Headquartered in Arlington, VA, CoStar Group, Inc. provides commercial real estate lease transaction data and analytics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin (Velvel) Freedman, Esq. Kyle Roche, Esq. Stephen Lagos, Esq. Joseph Lemoine, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 155 E. 44th Street, Suite 915 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 494-2900 E-mail: vel@fnf.law kroche@fnf.law slagos@fnf.law jlemoine@fnf.law CREDIT PROS: Gray Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80752 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or about June 16, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. The Credit Pros International LLC is a credit repair and financial technology firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7896 Email: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com CRESTVIEW ADVISORS: LB Partners Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ LB PARTNERS LLC and ODS CAPITAL LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRESTVIEW ADVISORS, LLC, BRIAN CASSIDY, DANIEL KILPATRICK, JEFFREY MARCUS, BARRY VOLPERT, JILL BRIGHT, and TERESA ELDER, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0801 (Del. Ch., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, Crestview, its affiliates, and officer breached their fiduciary duties by launching an opportunistic Initial Proposal at a price they knew undervalued WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW); by standing on both sides of the merger while dominating the negotiation through Crestview's Board control and the insertion of their Vice Chairman into the Special Committee; by steering WOW into the Super-Priority Credit Agreement that foreclosed standalone financing alternatives and the Special Committee's leverage; by refusing to condition the merger on an informed majority-of-the-minority vote; by engineering and then exploiting a manufactured pretext to extract a $1.05 per share price cut; by capturing the post-build fiber upside for the company; and by concealing material conflicts. As a result of the Defendants' breaches, WOW's unaffiliated stockholders received unfair consideration through an unfair process and have suffered damages. LB Partners LLC is a former stockholder of WideOpenWest, Inc. ODS Capital LLC is a former stockholder of WideOpenWest, Inc. Crestview Advisors, LLC is an investment fund manager doing business in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Calvano, Esq. Alexander J. Rigby, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 Email: anthony.calvano@blbglaw.com alexander.rigby@blbglaw.com - and - Irene R. Lax, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com irene@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 572-6983 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 389-5600 - and - John Vielandi, Esq. Tae Kyung Yang, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, Floor 34 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. David Rosenfeld, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Seeks Collective Action Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY ALLMAN, et al., v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02709-K (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their combined motion for Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA') Collective action certification and notice for FLSA claims and Rule 23 Class Certification for non-FLSA claims. The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order certifying a collective action for: "All past, current and future non-exempt employees who were, are, or will be employed by the County during the period of three years prior to the date of commencement of this action through the date of judgment in this action, who: a. Either worked more than 40 hours in at least one seven-day work period during this period; and b. while employed by Dallas County, were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for such work; or c. accrued FLSA Time over the 480-hour legal maximum for law enforcement or the 240-hour legal maximum for non-law enforcement; or d. upon separation from Dallas County (including retirement), were not paid, or were not fully paid, for the FLSA Time hours they had earned as of the date of separation." The Plaintiffs further request that this Court enter an order requiring the Defendants to produce contact information for all Putative Collective Action Members and authorizing the issuance of the Proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form, attached hereto, to all members of the putative class in the method described herein. The Plaintiffs further seek to certify the following class: "All former, current, and future non-exempt Dallas County employees who were, are, or will be employed by Dallas County during the period of three years prior to the date of commencement of this action through the date of judgment in this action, who accrued Other Compensatory Time (Non-FLSA compensatory time) ("OC Time") and who were not paid for, lost, or are at risk of losing accrued OC Time to which they were entitled." Dallas is situated in the Southern United States, in North Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utqCxH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George E. Hyde, Esq. Matthew L. Weston, Esq. HYDE KELLEY LLP 2806 Flintrock Trace, Suite A104 Austin, TX 78738 Telephone: (512) 686-0700 Facsimile: (866) 929-1641 E-mail: ghyde@txlocalgovlaw.com mweston@txlocalgovlaw.com - and - Allen Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave Ste 9150 Dallas, TX 75201-4599 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason G. Schuette, Esq. DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION Dallas County Records Building 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-6068 E-mail: jason.schuette@dallascounty.org - and - Mike Birrer, Esq. Jordan Brownlow Perry, Esq. CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 855-3140 E-mail: mbirrer@ccsb.com jperry@ccsb.com DAN DAN: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Cazares Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMELIA CAZARES, v. DAN DAN LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01696-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Ludwig entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations, and granting the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the second cause of action of the Plaintiff's amended complaint. The Court will deny Dan Dan's motion to strike as premature; the propriety of the Plaintiff's class allegations will be tested if and when she moves for class certification. The Court agrees with Dan Dan's challenge to Cazares's request for a declaratory judgment, however. That claim challenges an alleged past violation of the ADA and cannot succeed based on her allegations. It is also duplicative of her request for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to make its website accessible to her and other similarly situated blind individuals who use screen reading software. The Defendant is a Wisconsin limited liability company that operates a restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=caZarZ at no extra charge.[CC] DAVISON DESIGN: Class Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER MILLER, v. DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00459-RLP (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Pennell entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All Washington residents who (1) did not sign up for the Defendant's text messages, but (2) the Defendant texted, (3) at a Washington-area-code cellular number, (4) after the number was last disconnected and reassigned." Signups and text messages must have occurred between Nov. 15, 2021, to Dec. 10, 2025. The last disconnection date is determined utilizing the Reassigned Number Database or "RND" (the version last updated as of Feb. 16, 2026). -- The Court designates Heather Miller as the class representative. -- The Court designates Thomas Alvord of the HQ Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Defendant is a Pittsburgh-based product development and licensing company A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YWmK9x at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR: Devaney Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA R. DEVANEY and THOMAS A. BIERMANN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, appointing Motley Rice LLC and Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP as class counsel, and appointing Claggett & Sykes as local counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employees who began receiving a joint and survivor annuities ("JSAs") after Dec. 10, 2015 whose monthly benefit would be greater if calculated using the Applicable Mortality Table as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(B) in the year the participant started receiving benefits and the Applicable Interest Rate as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(C) in the August of the year before the participant started receiving benefits." Excluded from the Class are retirees whose benefits were subject to a qualified domestic relations order, the Defendants, and any individuals who are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan. Certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2) because the Defendants use the same conversion factors to calculate each Class member's JSA benefit and Plaintiffs seek a declaration that those factors violate ERISA by paying less than the actuarial equivalent amount. The Plaintiffs allege that Delta (the Plan's sponsor and named fiduciary) and the Administrative Committee (the Plan's administrator) violated ERISA by paying JSAs that are less than actuarially equivalent amounts, and that the Plaintiffs' monthly benefit amounts should be increased to satisfy ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirement. Delta Air provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wj6Jfx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE 29 S. Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGET & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 E-mail: mike@claggetlaw.com - and - Douglas P. Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Hughes Suit Over Privacy Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06768 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating California's Trap and Trace Law and committing intrusion upon seclusion. According to the complaint, Defendant DraftKings has allegedly installed and deployed data broker software on the website to secretly collect data about visitors, their devices, locations and views of webpages to identify who they are, target them with unwanted marketing and track their internet browsing on an ongoing basis. Moreover, both Defendant and the data broker behind the software deployed by the website benefit commercially and financially from this activity. Headquartered in Boston, MA, DraftKings is a Nevada corporation that owns and operates the website, www.draftkings.com, which offers online sports betting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com DYSON INC: Hunter Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Refund Retention ------------------------------------------------------------ AMY HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYSON, INC., and DYSON DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06921 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2026) arises from Dyson's retention of an unjustified windfall profit created by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government of the United States under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in roughly February 2025, the United States government imposed tariffs later found to be illegal on imports from numerous countries. Moreover, Defendant Dyson responded to these illegal tariffs by increasing their prices, passing the cost of the illegal tariffs on to consumers like Plaintiff. When the Supreme Court eventually held that these tariffs were illegal, importers and retailers like Defendant became entitled to refunds of the duties they had previously paid to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of thousands of consumers who purchased goods from Dyson who paid inflated prices reflecting Dyson's increased prices based on Dyson's pass-through of the tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges, together with declaratory and monetary relief. Headquartered in Illinois, Dyson, Inc. manufactures and sells household appliances, including vacuums, hand dryers, lights, and other home and commercial goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey Kraushaar, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: ckraushaar@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Michael Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com EDEN BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Eden Brands Inc., doing business as Evereden. Why: The plaintiff claims Evereden automatically renewed his subscription without providing the disclosures required under California law. Where: The Evereden class action was filed in California state court. A consumer has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Evereden automatically renewed subscriptions for its kids' bath products in violation of California law. Plaintiff Miguel Esparza claims Evereden made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in California through its website, ever-eden.com, without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures mandated by California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The ARL requires businesses to disclose automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policies and information on how to cancel in a manner that consumers can retain, the Evereden class action lawsuit says. Esparza argues Evereden failed to provide these disclosures, causing consumers to incur unlawful charges. Consumers were charged without warning and without explicit consent. The Evereden class action lawsuit alleges violations of the ARL also constitute violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Esparza is looking to represent a class of California consumers who purchased any product or service from Evereden's website in response to an offer constituting an "automatic renewal" as defined by the ARL within the statute of limitations period. Lawsuit: Evereden made it difficult to cancel subscriptions Esparza claims Evereden's website made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions despite the company's claims that cancellations could be made easily. He argues that the website required consumers to go through a series of steps and confirm their decision multiple times before completing the cancellation. The complaint alleges Esparza purchased Evereden's Kids Detangling Shampoo and was subjected to recurring monthly charges. Esparza claims he was not provided with the required disclosures regarding the automatic renewal terms, cancellation policy and how to cancel the subscription. Esparza requests damages, restitution, punitive damages and injunctive relief to prevent Evereden from continuing its alleged unlawful practices. Also in California, a class action lawsuit claims supplement company AG1 broke the law by surreptitiously enrolling consumers in auto-renewing subscriptions. Esparza is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC. The Evereden class action lawsuit is Esparza v. Eden Brands Inc., Case No. 26CU003622C, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. [GN] EERO LLC: May Face Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of Eero subscribers for potential violations of their rights under California law. Eero LLC, owned by Amazon, is a provider of home Wi-Fi systems that offers additional networking and security features through its eero Plus subscription (and formerly through eero Secure and eero Secure+ subscriptions), which automatically renews. The attorneys believe Eero may have violated the California Automatic Renewal Law by sending emails to subscribers about their upcoming renewals without specifying how much they were about to be charged. A lawsuit may be able to help subscribers recover money for any violations of their rights, and the attorneys now need to speak with affected individuals as part of their investigation. So, if your eero Plus, eero Secure or eero Secure+ subscription automatically renewed any time after September 1, 2022 and you received an email about your upcoming subscription renewal that failed to mention how much you would be charged, fill out the form on this page to help the investigation. California Automatic Renewal Law California's Automatic Renewal Law was enacted to protect consumers from being charged for ongoing services or product shipments without their consent. The law requires companies to provide "clear and conspicuous" information about automatically renewing subscriptions, including details about terms and cancellation methods, before charging customers for the service. The auto-renewal law specifies that if the subscription has an initial term of at least one year and automatically renews unless the consumer cancels, the company must provide a notice at least 15 days before renewal containing certain information, including the following details: -- A statement informing the consumer that the subscription will automatically renew -- The length and any additional terms of the renewal period -- The amount the consumer will be charged -- One or more ways that the consumer can cancel the subscription -- If the notice is sent electronically, a link to the cancellation process -- Contact information for the business The attorneys believe that Eero may have violated this provision of the auto-renewal law by sending subscribers renewal notices that failed to state how much they would be charged when their subscription renewed. Subscription Renewal Lawsuits Many companies have been hit with lawsuits over alleged violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law. For instance, an auto-renewal lawsuit filed against 1-800-Flowers in April 2023 claimed the company failed to clearly present the terms of its Celebrations Passport program, including that customers' annual memberships would automatically renew and that the price would be $10 higher than the first year. The lawsuit also claimed that the company failed to send members a notice of their upcoming renewal at least 15 days beforehand. Similarly, a lawsuit filed against Best Buy in August 2022 claimed a customer was overcharged for a three-month subscription to "an anti-virus program he never wanted or intended to use" after he bought a TV from the retailer. According to the case, Best Buy violated the California auto-renewal law by failing to clearly disclose the subscription's terms, not sending an email or other communication before charging customers, and making it difficult for customers to cancel unwanted subscriptions. How Could an eero Plus Auto-Renewal Lawsuit Help? An eero subscription renewal lawsuit could help subscribers recover money for any violations of their rights. It could also force the company to change how it communicates with customers regarding subscription renewals. What You Can Do If your subscription to eero Plus, eero Secure or eero Secure+ automatically renewed any time after September 1, 2022 and you received an email about your upcoming subscription renewal that did not specify how much you would be charged, help the investigation by filling out the form on this page. After you get in touch, an attorney or legal representative may reach out to you directly to ask you some questions and explain how you may be able to help get a class action lawsuit started. It doesn't cost anything to fill out the form or speak with someone, and you're not obligated to take legal action if you don't want to. [GN] EISEN INC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Georgiou Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER GEORGIOU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EISEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05468 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2026) arises from a recent data breach involving Defendant, a New York based fintech company founded in 2021. The complaint relates that in the course of collecting private information from consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, Eisen promised to provide confidentiality and adequate security for Private Information through its applicable Privacy Policy and in compliance with statutory privacy requirements applicable to its industry. However, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Specifically, on December 12, 2025, Defendant became aware that a threat actor impersonated the California State Controller's Office and fraudulently requested a file containing unclaimed property compliance records. Believing the request to be legitimate, an employee provided the requested file before the deception was identified. After an unspecified amount of time, between the date they became aware and sent the notice letters, the investigation determined that an unauthorized actor accessed Eisen's network and exfiltrated data. The complaint alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded; failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data; and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. 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) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class members, seek 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, prejudgment interest and costs, plus injunctive relief. Plaintiff Christopher Georgiou is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Eisen, Inc. is a New York based financial services company that provides AI-enabled regulatory technology and compliance operations for financial institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 156 W 56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com EPISOURCE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Episource LLC Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-05330-SB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order modifying the case management order as follows: Event Dates Trial: May 10, 2027 Motion for Class Certification Sept. 17, 2026 (including the Plaintiffs' class cert. expert disclosures) Opposition to motion for class Oct. 14, 2026 certification (including the Defendant's class cert. expert disclosures): Reply brief in support of class Oct. 28, 2026 certification: Motion for Class Certification Nov. 20, 2026 (8:30 a.m.): Fact discovery cutoff: Dec. 16, 2026 Episource develops health care software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q1oMqj at no extra charge.[CC] FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUAN M. VACA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASTENAL COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV37797, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07022 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; (2) failure to authorize or permit meal periods; (3) failure to authorize or permit rest periods; (4) failure to indemnify employees for employment related losses/expenditures; (5) failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick days at the regular rate of pay; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and (8) unfair business practices. Fastenal Company is an American publicly traded company based in Winona, Minnesota, founded in 1967. Fastenal is a distributor of industrial and construction supplies, and the largest fastener distributor in North America.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class Cert. Filing in Gillyard Due Jan. 11, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Chun entered an order to continue class certification motion schedule. The deadlines for class certification motion schedule shall be continued as follows: The Plaintiffs' motion: Jan. 11, 2027 The Defendant's response: March 8, 2027 The Plaintiffs' reply: April 5, 2027 Federal Express is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9DW1rY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are 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 FORD MOTOR: Miller Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA MILLER, et al., as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 21, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court for class certification and appointment of class representative and class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the Memorandum in Support of the Motion; the Declarations of Mark P. Chalos, Cody Padgett, and Stuart C. Talley, and the exhibits attached thereto; the pleadings, records, and files in this action; and such other and further evidence and argument as may be presented at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the parties conferred by Zoom on June 16, 2026, during which Ford informed the Plaintiffs that Ford would not consent to the relief sought in this Motion. The Defendant is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P3mkyI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq. Annika K. Martin Gabriel Panek LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37219-2423 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com mchalos@lchb.com pgnguyen@lchb.com akmartin@lchb.com gpanek@lchb.com - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Y. Hijazin, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW 1875 Century Part East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: cody.padgett@Capstonelawyers.com majdi.hijazin@capstonelawyers.com abigail.gertner@capstonelawyers.com - and - William A. Kershaw, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. Ian J. Barlow, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW PC 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 779-7000 Facsimile: (916) 244-4829 E-mail: bill@ktblegal.com stuart@ktblegal.com ian@ktblegal.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. William T. Crowder, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM PA 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com - and - Patrick Newsom, Esq. NEWSOM LAW PLC 40 Music Square East Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 615-251-9500 E-mail: patrick@newsom.law FORD MOTOR: Must File Partial Summary Judgment Support by August 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: (1) The Defendant shall file a motion for partial summary judgment by June 22, 2026; (2) Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment by July 22, 2026; (3) Defendant shall file a reply in support of the motion for partial summary judgment by Aug. 5, 2026; (4) Motions to exclude expert opinions relevant to class certification issues shall be filed by Aug. 12, 2026; (5) Oppositions to the motions to exclude expert opinions relevant to class certification issues by Aug. 26, 2026; (6) The deadline for all motions except for motions for temporary restraining order, continuances, and other emergency motions presently set for Aug. 7, 2026 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary; (7) The Final Pretrial Conference presently set for Jan. 11, 2027 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary; and (8) The Jury Trial presently set for March 16, 2027 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Opposition to Partial Summary Judgment Bid Due July 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: (1) The Defendant shall file a motion for partial summary judgment by June 22, 2026; (2) Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment by July 22, 2026; (3) Defendant shall file a reply in support of the motion for partial summary judgment by Aug. 5, 2026; (4) Motions to exclude expert opinions relevant to class certification issues shall be filed by Aug. 12, 2026; (5) Oppositions to the motions to exclude expert opinions relevant to class certification issues by Aug. 26, 2026; (6) The deadline for all motions except for motions for temporary restraining order, continuances, and other emergency motions presently set for Aug. 7, 2026 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary; (7) The Final Pretrial Conference presently set for Jan. 11, 2027 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary; and (8) The Jury Trial presently set for March 16, 2027 is vacated to be reset at a later date as the court deems necessary. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.[CC] FUTU HOLDINGS: Faces Tang Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- YONG HONG TANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUTU HOLDINGS LIMITED, LEAF HUA LI, and ARTHUR YU CHEN, Case No. 1:26-cv-05453 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Futu securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Futu engages in the provision of digitalized securities brokerage and wealth management product distribution service in Hong Kong and internationally. On December 30, 2022, China Securities Regulatory Commission issued a statement that Futu has conducted cross-border securities businesses with domestic investors in mainland China without regulatory consent. As a result, Futu was banned from opening new accounts from mainland Chinese investors and soliciting new business from mainland investors. On May 22, 2026, before the market opened, Reuters published an article reporting that the CSRC, along with seven other government agencies including the central bank, had launched a crackdown aimed at "brokers it accused of illegally moving money to foreign markets" including "overseas firms and their local partners operating without approval." On the same date, pre-market, Futu issued a press release disclosing that it had received a Notification Letter from the CSRC. The Company reported the letter states "certain Futu entities in mainland China and Hong Kong without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval, conducted securities business, public fund sales business and futures business in mainland China." On this news, Futu's stock price fell $34.10, or 27.5%, to close at $89.76 per share on May 22, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. On May 28, 2026, before the market opened, Futu issued a press release reporting financial results for the first quarter 2026, including net income of HK$831.0 million (US$106.0 million) after giving effect to the proposed penalties comprised of confiscation of illegal gains of approximately RMB470 million [approximately $69.21 million USD]. The press release reported under the Company's financial statements as "Others, net" in its statements of comprehensive income for the applicable period. 8. On this news, Futu's stock price fell $5.31, or 4.8%, to close at $104.91 on May 28, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Futu was not in compliance with the requirements of the CSRC, including because the Company continued to conduct securities business, public fund sales business and futures business in mainland China without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Futu securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Futu engages in the provision of digitalized securities brokerage and wealth management product distribution service in Hong Kong and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 745 5th Avenue, 5th Floor New York, New York 10151 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 GARY MERLINO: Schifano Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as ARYAL SCHIFANO, STONEY KUCK, and GLENN EASTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Washington corporation, Case No. 252-31435-9-SEA (Filed May 29, 2026) was removed from the the Superior Court for the State of Washington for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on June 26, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02233 to the proceeding. FAC asserts putative class claims for Defendant's alleged failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick, unlawful deductions and rebates. failure to pay all wages due at termination, willful refusal to pay wages, and failure to pay all compensation owed. Pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code and The Revised Code of Washington. GARY MERLINO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. is a construction company in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Erin M. Wilson, Esq. Priya B. Vivian, Esq. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: wilsonem@ballardspahr.com vivianp@ballardspahr.com GOODRX INC: Website Uses Interception Technologies, Erakat Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MONZER ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02291-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website www.goodrx.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant knowingly embeds and deploys trackers on the Website and configures them to execute automatically within users' browsers during the page-load process. As a result, Defendant causes the browsers of California users, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, to transmit the contents of their communications with the Website, in real time and during the page-load process itself, to the third parties operating the Trackers. During his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive mental-health subject matter, including a page concerning the signs of depression in men and a page concerning the treatments for major depressive disorder, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of his communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices, did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being transmitted to the third parties operating the Trackers, and did not consent to the use or commercial exploitation of those contents by Defendant or by the third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek restitution and disgorgement of all amounts by which Defendant was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's and Class Members' expense. Plaintiff MONZER ERAKAT is a California citizen who visited the Website on May 27, 2026. Defendant GoodRx, Inc. owns, operates, and controls the Website, www.goodrx.com a healthcare consumer platform through which GoodRx publishes drug-pricing, condition, treatment, and other healthcare information to a national audience, including a significant audience of California users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com GOOGLE LLC: Order on Briefing Schedule in McGrath Suit Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE MCGRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01446-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion Regarding Consolidation and Briefing Schedule for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, Filing of Consolidated Complaint, and Google LLC's Responses Thereto, and good cause appearing therefore, orders as follows: 1. The following actions pending in this District shall be designated as related and consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before this Court: a. McGrath v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01446-CRB; b. Nadeau v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01454-AMO, and; c. Jenkins v. Google LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01481-YGR. 2. All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under Case No. 3:26-cv01446-CRB, the number assigned to the first-filed McGrath Action. 3. The case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under the Master File Case No. 3:26-cv-01446-CRB. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close the following Related Actions: a. Nadeau v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01454-AMO, and; b. Jenkins v. Google LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01481-YGR. 5. Any subsequently filed, removed, or transferred action that alleges the same or substantially similar claims as this Consolidated Action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action for all purposes. Google is an American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SjyB2c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com kyle@csclassactions.com GOOGLE LLC: Order on Briefing Schedule in Nadeau Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISHA NADEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01454-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion Regarding Consolidation and Briefing Schedule for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, Filing of Consolidated Complaint, and Google LLC’s Responses Thereto, and good cause appearing therefore, orders as follows: 1. The following actions pending in this District shall be designated as related and consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before this Court: a. McGrath v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01446-CRB; b. Nadeau v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01454-AMO, and; c. Jenkins v. Google LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01481-YGR. 2. All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under Case No. 3:26-cv01446-CRB, the number assigned to the first-filed McGrath Action. 3. The case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under the Master File Case No. 3:26-cv-01446-CRB. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close the following Related Actions: a. Nadeau v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-01454-AMO, and; b. Jenkins v. Google LLC, No. 4:26-cv-01481-YGR. 5. Any subsequently filed, removed, or transferred action that alleges the same or substantially similar claims as this Consolidated Action shall be consolidated with the Consolidated Action for all purposes. Google is an American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ceAgIB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com jjagher@fklmlaw.com nlange@fklmlaw.com GRAND CANYON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ogdon Due August 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katie Ogdon, v. Grand Canyon University Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Rayes entered an order amending case schedule as follows: Event Date The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 31, 2026 certification and expert reports in support thereof due: Deadline for completion of Aug. 31, 2026 pre-class discovery: The Defendants' Opposition to Nov. 30, 2026 motion for class certification and expert reports in support thereof due: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Jan. 12, 2027 motion for class certification and expert rebuttal reports due: Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in Phoenix, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TqYmxD at no extra charge.[CC] GUARANTEED RATE: Peters Bid for Class Discovery Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PETERS, et al., v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05602-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying Peters's motion for class discovery and, in the alternative, to certify as frivolous Guaranteed Rate's interlocutory appeal of the Court's ruling as to Version 1 of the arbitration agreement. There is a fair argument that Guaranteed Rate's appeal of the Court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration for workers who signed Version 1 of the agreement is frivolous. But as discussed at the hearing, given the complicated factual and procedural posture of this case, certifying the appeal as frivolous would not meaningfully advance the ball. Peters seeks to conduct discovery related to the potential certification of a class that includes: (1) workers who signed versions of the arbitration agreement that the Court has ruled unenforceable, where that ruling is currently on interlocutory appeal; and (2) workers who signed versions of the arbitration agreement that the Court has ruled enforceable. Guaranteed Rate operates as a mortgage and finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9s78u8 at no extra charge.[CC] HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Toft Suit Dismissed, Defends Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harbor Diversified, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2026, that the court dismissed the Toft class suit for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the Company continues to defend itself from the derivative class suits. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several lawsuits relating to facts arising in connection with the restatement of its previously issued consolidated financial statement for the year ended December 31, 2022, as well as the interim unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for the first three quarters of the years ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2023. One of those matters was a consolidated putative class action complaint captioned Toft v. Harbor Diversified, Inc., et al. (the "Class Action"). On Jan. 31, 2025, the court dismissed the operative complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Defendants subsequently moved for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against the plaintiffs and their law firms, including the Rosen Law Firm. On Dec. 3, 2025, the court granted the motion for sanctions with respect to the Rosen Law Firm, finding that its complaint against the Company was frivolous, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Additionally, in 2024, three stockholders each filed a stockholder derivative action against certain officers and directors of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, arising from allegations substantively similar to those raised in the Class Action. Two of those actions were consolidated in an action captioned In re Harbor Diversified, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and the other action is captioned Cooke v. Bartlett et al. Neither action substantively moved forward while the parties awaited a decision on the motion to dismiss in the Class Action. Following the dismissal of the Class Action, in addition, on March 12, 2026, the court entered a dismissal without prejudice in the Wisconsin consolidated action pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The plaintiff in the Delaware action filed a notice of dismissal, which was entered by the court on March 25, 2026. Harbor Diversified, Inc. is a diversified holding company primarily engaged through its subsidiaries in regional air transportation and related aviation services. The company seeks to create value through the operation and strategic management of its portfolio businesses. HERTZ GLOBAL: Class Wins Certification in Common Stock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD M. DOLLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., STEPHEN M. SCHERR, ALEXANDRA BROOKS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00513-KCD-KRH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dudek entered an order that granting motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of Class Counsel as follows: 1. The Court certifies the following proposed class: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., between Jan. 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024, inclusive, and were injured thereby"; Excluded are: (a) the Defendants; (b) members of the immediate families of the Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of the Defendants; (d) any person who is an officer, director or controlling person of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.; (e) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; (f) the Defendants' directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; and (g) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. 2. Robert Stephens is appointed as the class representative; 3. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is appointed as class counsel; and 4. The Court will address all remaining issues, including class notice and approval of the settlement, in conjunction with the parties' outstanding motion. The Court is satisfied that Doller's proposed class satisfies the demands of Rule 23. The Plaintiff claims that Hertz violated federal securities laws by publicly touting robust consumer demand for its electric vehicle fleet while internal tracking systems showed a far bleaker reality. Hertz is a worldwide vehicle rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DKanEO at no extra charge.[CC] HIFLOW VENTURES: Automatically Renews Subscription, Purscelley Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PURSCELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIFLOW VENTURES, INC., d/b/a WWW.HIFLOWGUM.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV19197 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of automatically renewing paid subscription at its website, www.hiflowgum.com, without customers' consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Hiflow Ventures, Inc., doing business as www.hiflowgum.com, is an online retailer in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com HP INC: Pattison Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY PATTISON is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Mary Pattison, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HP Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is a class action for damages resulting from HP Inc.'s breach of its contract with the Plaintiff and others similarly situated regarding its Care Packs with "Risk Free" rebates. On Mar. 13, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted on June 2, 2026. The Court finds that HP has met its burden of demonstrating Pattison has not raised and cannot raise a triable issue as to reliance, a requisite element of her two claims. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby granted. The appellate case is styled as Pattison v. HP Inc., Case No. 26-3923, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARY PATTISON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: David Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW PLLC 1800 Bering Dr., Suite 1075 Houston, TX 77057 - and - Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC 4200 Montrose, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 - and - Rom Aric Bar-Nissim, Esq. HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP 1801 Century Park, East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Defendant-Appellee HP INC. is represented by: Michael J. Stortz, Esq. K&L GATES, LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Rachel Berman, Esq. 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 HYATT CORP: Hernandez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled NABANY CRUZ HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION DBA VENTANA BIG SUR; 48123 VBS OP LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV002234, was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Monterey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 22, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-06197 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged wage and hour law violations. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Hyatt Corporation owns and operates the Ventana Big Sur, a luxury resort on the California coast. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew B. Levin, Esq. Dylan N. Patel, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Esplanade Center III, Suite 800 2415 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 778-3700 Facsimile: (602) 778-3750 E-mail: andy.levin@ogletree.com dylan.patel@ogletree.com IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Mack Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Donna Mack, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01371-CAB-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, which was removed from Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged personal injury claims. On Apr. 1, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to State Court, which Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted on May 12, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Mack v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Case No. 26-3905, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 27, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DONNA MACK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Defendant-Appellant IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Jr., Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd floor Boulder, CO 80301 IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Maldonado Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Cynthia Maldonado, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01312-CAB-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, which was removed from Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged personal injury claims. On Mar. 31, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand to State Court, which Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted on May 12, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Maldonado, et al. v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, et al., Case No. 26-3904, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 27, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CYNTHIA MALDONADO, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Shani Or Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Defendant-Appellant IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Jr., Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd floor Boulder, CO 80301 IMPERIAL BEACH: Appeals Remand Order in Ramirez Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Mark Jesse Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01326-CAB-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit, which was removed from Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged personal injury claims. On Apr. 1, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to State Court, which Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted on May 12, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Ramirez v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic, Case No. 26-3903, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 17, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 27, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MARK JESSE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Defendant-Appellant IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY CLINIC is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Jr., Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN, LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd floor Boulder, CO 80301 INFINITE COMPUTER: Starr Sues Over Breach of Insurance Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of City of Hope National Medical Center, Plaintiff v. INFINITE COMPUTER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02424-ELH (D. Md., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, contractual indemnification, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's breach of a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) that required it to obtain liability insurance for the Plaintiff's insured, City of Hope National Medical Center (COH). According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to obtain $3 million in liability coverage that named COH as an additional named insured, as required by Section 16 of the BAA following a data breach incident that accessed COH's network and exfiltrated certain data and information between September 19, 2023, and October 12, 2023. As a result, Starr, as subrogee of COH, has been harmed by the Defendant's failure to obtain the insurance that it promised to COH. Starr now seeks reimbursement and indemnification for the damages it sustained due to the Defendant's breaches under the BAA. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company is a surplus property and casualty insurance provider based in New York Infinite Computer Solutions, Inc. is a technology company based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Toyja E. Kelley, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 274-2950 Email: toyja.kelley@troutman.com - and - Kevin F. Kieffer, Esq. 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 622-2700 Email: Kevin.Kieffer@troutman.com - and - Thomas S. Hay, Esq. 501 Grant Street, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 454-5812 Email: Thomas.Hay@troutman.com - and - Andrew R. Nagode, Esq. 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 274-2890 Email: Andrew.Nagode@Troutman.com IPSWITCH INC: Fact Discovery Due Sept. 29 in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Burroughs entered an order a case management order as follows: -- Deadline to raise dispute: July 1, 2026 -- Fact discovery closes: September 29, 2026 MOVEit is a managed file transfer software product produced by Ipswitch, Inc. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ESiE9S at no extra charge.[CC] JM SMUCKER: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Folgers Coffee Marketing Litigation, Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs will move for an order for class certification on behalf of themselves and the proposed California Class of consumers as set forth in Exhibit 4 to this Motion, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), and appointing the law firms of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Faruqi & Faruqi as Class Counsel. The briefing schedule and oral argument are as follows: Moving Papers: June 22, 2026 Opposition Papers: Aug. 20, 2026 Reply Papers: Oct. 16, 2026 Oral Argument: None set. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QZEMNk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Nina M. Varindani, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com nvarindani@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com KASSIA DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KASSIA DESIGNS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04933 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.pfflyers.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Kassia Designs, LLC owns and operates the commercial website which offers footwear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KETTERING ADVENTIST: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Morefield Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARANDA MOREFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE, D/B/A KETTERING HEALTH, Case No. 3:26-cv-00212-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, June 26, 2026) contends that the Defendant's illegal and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and putative Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including, but not necessarily limited to Google, LLC and StackAdapt, Inc. is an ongoing harm to its users and the healthcare system as a whole. Accordingly, Kettering Collects Vast Troves of Private Information. Kettering controls and maintains a website, https://ketteringhealth.org, which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, signing up for events and classes and more. The Plaintiff and members of the putative class who visited and used Defendant's Website understandably thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare providers. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Class Members, however, Kettering embedded various third-parties' tracking technologies on its Website, including but not limited to, Google DoubleClick, Google Analytics, and the StackAdapt Pixel (Tracking Tools). The Tracking Tools automatically transmit to third parties every click, keystroke and detail about Users’ medical treatment. Operating as designed and as implemented by Kettering, the Tracking Tools cause the Private Information that Plaintiff and Class Members provide to Kettering to be unlawfully disclosed to third parties, like Google, the suit says. The Private Information Kettering sends to third parties is also linked to Users' unique IP address or other identifiable user profiles created by the Tracking Tools, which allow the Users to be personally identifiable to the third parties. Kettering is a faith-based family of medical centers, emergency centers, and outpatient facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO & WILLIAMS, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile. (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Wallace Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUSTIN WALLACE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12568, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06958 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims under California Labor Code for: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) unpaid meal period premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums; (4) unpaid minimum wages; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6) wages not timely paid during employment; (7) non- compliant wage statements; (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records; and (9) unreimbursed business expenses; as well as unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code. KinderCare Education LLC operates early learning centers, offers before- and after-school programs, and partners with employers to deliver customized family care benefits.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 552-2140 Facsimile: (503) 224-4518 E-mail: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Omar M. Aniff, Esq. Haik Kolsuzyan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: omar.aniff@ogletree.com haik.kolsuzyan@ogletree.com KNOWBE4 INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification Terminated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Altonaga entered an order terminating the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Should the motion for judgment on the Pleadings be denied, the Court will turn to and address Lead Plaintiffs' class certification motion. On May 1, 2026, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On June 12, 2026, the Defendants filed an opposed motion for leave to file amended answers and affirmative defenses and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. It is prudent and appropriate for the Court to resolve the motion for judgment on the pleadings before considering the matter of class certification. KnowBe4 is an integrated platform for security awareness training combined with simulated phishing attacks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6lO8Fn at no extra charge.[CC] KONICA MINOLTA : Cezus Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CEZUS and other similarly situated employees, v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered a judgment granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and counsel under Rule 23. The Court finds that certification is proper under Rule 23(b)(1). The Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on Dec. 17, 2020. The Plaintiff brought a Second Amended Complaint and now seeks to certify on behalf of the following class: "All eligible participants in Konica Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A, Inc.'s severance and/or retirement plan entitled Amended and Restated Konica Minolta Severance Plan adopted and effective Jan. 1, 2015 ("The Plan" or "Severance Plan"), who, as employees of the Company, experienced Termination of Employment under the guise of relocating the Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees, to new positions at a New Jersey facility of the Company, which the Defendant knew would be near impossible for the proposed employee Class Members to accept, and as such, would suffer termination." The Plaintiff worked for Konica and, later, the Defendant in the Windsor Office from 1985 to 2018. The Defendant provides management technologies and IT Services. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOBVDA at no extra charge.[CC] LANDS' END: Court Extends Case Deadlines in Meadows --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON MEADOWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LANDS' END, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05841-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion to stay discovery and extend case deadlines: Event Date Close of fact discovery for issues 90 days following resolution related to class certification: of Order to Show Cause Deadline to file motion for class 104 days following Certification: resolution of Order to Show Cause Deadline to file opposition to 139 days following motion for class certification: resolution of Order to Show Cause Close of expert discovery for 153 days following issues related to class resolution of Order to Show Certification: Cause Hearing on motion for class To be set by the Court Certification: Lands' is an American retailer of clothing, baggage, and furniture. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UHLdgA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: David Freeburg, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Telephone: (206) 839-4800 E-mail: david.freeburg@us.dlapiper.com - and - Benjamin Naftalis, Esq. Alexander C. K. Wyman, Esq. Gary Feinerman, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: benjamin.naftalis@lw.com alex.wyman@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com susan.engel@lw.com LIMITLESS X: Continues to Defend Quinn Class Suit in Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------- Limitless X Holdings Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Quinn class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Morgan Quinn, et al. v. Limitless X Inc., et al. On April 22, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by plaintiffs Morgan Quinn and Jorge Delgadillo against Limitless X Inc., Limitless X Holdings, Inc., and Limitless Performance Inc. The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with respect to a dietary supplement product marketed as "NZT-48," including alleged misrepresentations regarding its ingredients, origin, and efficacy. The complaint asserts claims under Oregon and Florida consumer protection statutes, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf of proposed classes. The outcome is unknown and the Company does not believe any contingent accrual is required as of March 31, 2026. Limitless X Holdings Inc. is a marketing and brand-development company focused on health, wellness and lifestyle products, including dietary supplements. The Company leverages digital advertising and e-commerce channels to promote and distribute its portfolio of consumer brands. LOEWS CORP: Fraley Balks at Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY FRALEY and NANCY COPLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOEWS CORPORATION and LOEWS HOTELS HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03513-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2026) seeks for damages, injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs seek remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities. Despite its actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Headquartered in New York, NY, Loews Corporation owns and maintains hotel facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com LegalDept@colevannote.com LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Colombaro Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA COLOMBARO, v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Case No. 3:20-cv-02564-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for motion for class certification from Wednesday, July 1, 2026, to Wednesday, July 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs move this Court to extend the deadlines for class certification as follows: Deadlines for class certification Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion: July 15, 2026 The Defendants' opposition: Aug. 17, 2026 Reply: Aug. 31, 2026 The Plaintiffs' counsel is mindful of the admonition in the April 10, 2026 Order that no further extensions will be granted, however, she has been dealing with a medical issue for which she missed nearly a week of work due to medical appointments and a negative reaction to medication, which significantly interfered with her ability to work. The Lucas County Board provides public safety and public service programs and operations. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JDJ5Ds at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 856-7500 E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com - and - Nancy Grim, Esq. NANCY GRIM, LLC Kent, OH 44240-0002 Telephone: (330) 678-6595 Facsimile: (844) 270-7608 E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Dennis A. Lyle, Esq. Elaine B. Szuch, Esq. LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTORS 711 Adams Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 213-2001 Facsimile: (419) 213-2011 E-mail: dalyle@co.lucas.oh.us eszuch@co.lucas.oh.us - and - Rebecca E. Shope, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson St Toledo, OH 43604 E-mail: rshope@shumaker.com LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Upperco Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER UPPERCO, et al., v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for motion for class certification from Wednesday, July 1, 2026, to Wednesday, July 15, 2026. The Plaintiffs move this Court to extend the deadlines for class certification as follows: Deadlines for class certification Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion: July 15, 2026 The Defendants' opposition: Aug. 17, 2026 Reply: Aug. 31, 2026 The Plaintiffs' counsel is mindful of the admonition in the April 10, 2026 Order that no further extensions will be granted, however, she has been dealing with a medical issue for which she missed nearly a week of work due to medical appointments and a negative reaction to medication, which significantly interfered with her ability to work. The Lucas County Board provides public safety and public service programs and operations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZUOpnJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. BURAKIEWICZ & DEPRIEST, PLLC 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 856-7500 E-mail: hburakiewicz@bdlawdc.com - and - Nancy Grim, Esq. NANCY GRIM, LLC Kent, OH 44240-0002 Telephone: (330) 678-6595 Facsimile: (844) 270-7608 E-mail: nancy.grim@nancygrimlaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Dennis A. Lyle, Esq. Elaine B. Szuch, Esq. LUCAS COUNTY PROSECUTORS 711 Adams Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 213-2001 Facsimile: (419) 213-2011 E-mail: dalyle@co.lucas.oh.us eszuch@co.lucas.oh.us - and - Rebecca E. Shope, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 1000 Jackson St Toledo, OH 43604 E-mail: rshope@shumaker.com MADISON SQUARE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pitt Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN PITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SPORTS CORP., MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05184 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. is professional sports company based in New York, New York. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is a live entertainment company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Sedgh, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 199 Water St., Suite 1500, New York, NY Telephone: (212) 738-6839 Facsimile: (718) 510-9352 Email: jsedgh@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. Jayden Mougin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com Jayden.mougin@forthepeople.com MARGIE QUIN: Class Certification Filing in Odeneal Due Oct. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIE ODENEAL as next friend of Keira M., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ET AL., v. MARGIE QUIN, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00566 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Trauger entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by Oct. 30, 2026, with the response due by Nov. 30, 2026, and the reply by Dec. 15, 2026. The Court further orders that, by July 23, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status report as to their willingness to engage in a mediation with Carlos Gonzalez and, if so, the timing of the mediation and whether or not any specific discovery should take place prior to the mediation. The establishment of additional case management deadlines will be in a subsequent order of the court. Margie Quin is a commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iOGx5k at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Parties Seek July 29 Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON and ANACLETO DELEON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting case schedule deadlines as follows Event Deadline Hearing on Motion for Class Wednesday, July 29, 2026 Certification and Motions to Exclude at 10:00 a.m. PT Experts: Close of Fact Discovery Aug. 14, 2026 (except as detailed below): The Parties propose a Wednesday only because it is the soonest date on which counsel for all Parties are available. The Parties recognize that the Court's Standing Order provides that Civil Law and Motion Calendar is conducted on Fridays, but have determined that the earliest Friday after July 14, 2026 on which counsel for all Parties are available to appear is Aug. 28, 2026. Meta requests that the hearing proceed in person, the Plaintiffs take no position, and both Parties are amenable to proceeding by videoconference (Zoom) should the Court prefer. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pCLsd6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Gardner, Esq. Michael W. Sobol, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. John D. Maher, Esq. Linnea D. Pittman, Esq. Wesley Dozier, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: msobol@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com jmaher@lchb.com lpittman@lchb.com wdozier@lchb.com - and - Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Allen Carney, Esq. Courtney E. Ross, Esq. Connor Thompson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com acarney@cbplaw.com cross@cbplaw.com cthompson@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. Kristin I Sheffield-Whitehead, Esq. Catherine Anne Rizzoni, Esq. Dianne Kim, Esq. Marissa Alter-Nelson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com cat.rizzoni@lw.com dianne.kim@lw.com marissa.alter-nelson@lw.com METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Ohio Suit Seeks Declaration of CBA Rights ------------------------------------------------------------- OHIO PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. CV26140907 (Ohio Comm. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. According to the complaint, the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association seeks a declaration of their rights under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the contractual grievance procedure that it agreed with MetroHealth. OPBA is entitled to a declaration that: (a) MetroHealth failed to comply with the Step 3 response deadline in Article 13 of the CBA; (b) MetroHealth's failure to issue timely Step 3 responses resulted in settlement of Anastasiya Ivanushkina, Erik Philipps, and Auto Patrol grievances in favor of the grievants; (c) those grievances are no longer unresolved grievances subject to arbitration; and (d) MetroHealth is contractually obligated to implement the remedies resulting from the settlement of those grievances. A declaratory judgment will terminate the uncertainty and controversy between the parties, suit says. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association is a labor organization in Ohio. The MetroHealth System is a non-profit, academic healthcare system in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Chaloupka, Esq. Amanda L. Hays, Esq. OHIO PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION 10147 Royalton Road, Suite J North Royalton, OH 44133 Telephone: (440) 237-7900 Facsimile: (440) 237-6446 Email: achaloupka@opba.com ahays@opba.com MINNETONKA MOCCASIN: Bishop Sues Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINNETONKA MOCCASIN COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05097 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.minnetonkamoccasin.com contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal MINT MOBILE: McMullen Seeks Unpaid Wages for Automotive Detailers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN McMULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINT MOBILE DETAIL, LLC, and DAVID SESSIONS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03377-TRJ (N.D. Ga., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and unlawful retention of tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an automotive detailer from on or about February 3, 2025, through on or about May 22, 2026. Mint Mobile Detail, LLC is a mobile automotive detailing services provider in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adeash A. Lakraj, Esq. Kenneth S. Nugent, PC 4227 Pleasant Hill Road, Building 11 Duluth, GA 30096 Telephone: (770) 495-6707 Facsimile: (770) 495-6690 Email: alakraj@callken.com - and - J. Corey Asay, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 318-4496 Email: casay@hkm.com MISSOURI: Darrington Class Certification Bid Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next friend for M.R., et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1. The Court certifies the following classes: "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and are: (a) declared not competent to proceed to trial by the state court; (b) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility; (c) court-ordered to receive restoration services by DMH; and (d) awaiting court-ordered competency restoration services to be provided by DMH or its designees for more than 90 days beyond the Restoration order of the circuit court (the "Restoration Class")." and "All people who are now, or will be in the future, charged with a crime in Missouri state court and for whom a court has ordered a competency evaluation and who are: (a) currently detained in a county or city jail or similar facility, and (b) placed on a waitlist for competency evaluation services by DMH and (c) awaiting evaluation services for more than 90 days beyond an order of the circuit court (the "Evaluation Class")." 2. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs M.R., K.M., M.T., O.J., and C.T. as class representatives for the "Restoration Class." 3. The Court appoints the Plaintiff D.W. as class representative for the "Evaluation Class." 4. The Court appoints undersigned counsel as class counsel. 5. Within 10 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed amended scheduling order and proposed dates for a preliminary injunction to take place within the next 60 days. Both proposed classes are entitled to the same level of due process in competency proceedings—with respect to both the evaluation and the treatment aspects. Litigating class members' claims individually would present a risk of varying outcomes in what due process requires, when the same standards should apply to all competency proceedings for all indigent criminal defendants with serious mental illness. Class certification pursuant to subpart (b)(1)(A) is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit against all Defendants alleges DMH has been systemically failing to provide Constitutionally timely evaluations and restoration services to pretrial detainees who are suspected of, or adjudicated to be, incompetent to stand trial. The Department provides services and support for individuals with mental illness, developmental disabilities, and substance use disorder. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGT3jv at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO CO: Boylan Appeals Remand Order in King Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG BOYLAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' motions to remand in the lawsuit entitled Randall King, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00813-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged personal injury claims. On May 21, 2026, Objectors filed objections in the Missouri court and, the next day, filed the Notice of Removal in this Court. On May 26, 2026, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs filed their motions to remand, which Judge Henry Edward Autrey granted on June 17, 2026. The Court concludes that Objectors are not Defendants in the action and have no basis upon which to remove it. The Court, therefore lacks jurisdiction and the case must be remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The appellate case is styled as Randall King, et al. v. Craig Boylan, et al., Case No. 26-2217, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RANDALL KING, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: David R. Buchanan, Esq. Steven J. Daroci, II, Esq. Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER & WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 - and - Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2625 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 - and - Peter A. Kraus, Esq. WATERS & KRAUS 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 357-6244 - and - Joseph F. Rice, Esq. MOTLEY & RICE P.O. Box 1792 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Defendant-Appellee MONSANTO COMPANY is represented by: Meher Babbar, Esq. Elizabeth Barbara Buellesbach, Esq. Elaine P. Golin, Esq. Carrie Reilly, Esq. WACHTELL & LIPTON 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1000 - and - James F. Bennett, Esq. Hannah Fleener Preston, Esq. DOWD & BENNETT 7676 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 - and - Daniel W. Nelson, Esq. GIBSON & DUNN 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Objectors-Appellants CRAIG BOYLAN, et al. are represented by: Ashley C. Keller, Esq. KELLER & POSTMAN 2333 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite R-240 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (833) 633-0118 - and - Richard Prescott Sifton, Jr., Esq. FRAZER PLC 30 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 450 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (314) 591-6961 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Brantmeier" Settlement Gets Prelim Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-238 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement. This case is another antitrust suit against the NCAA about its eligibility rules for college athletics. It involves NCAA rules restricting Division I college tennis eligibility based on acceptance of unauthorized outside prize money before and after college enrollment. Before the settlement, the court certified two classes: a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class and a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. The proposed settlement provides injunctive relief primarily to pre-college enrollment athletes, who will now be able to keep all prize money earned in tennis tournaments without losing Division I eligibility. The settlement does not require the NCAA to change current rules restricting prize money for current college students. For the damages class, the NCAA agreed to pay $2,000,000 to be divided among athletes who submit valid claims showing forfeiture of prize money through the damages class period ending November 21, 2025. The settlement calls for release of future injunctive claims by the injunctive class, who cannot opt out since the class was certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The damages class release bars future claims that accrued during the damages class period, though members may sue separately for prize money forfeited after November 21, 2025. The court adopted its earlier findings on numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation for both classes. The claims process and allocation plan were found reasonable and fair. The court considered potential adequacy concerns, including the absence of injunctive relief for current Division I players, and found the settlement suitable to move forward, subject to further review at final approval. The court approved the proposed notice plan, to be distributed across the class website, news media, social media, email, and mail within 30 days. Class members have 90 days to object or opt out, with opt-out and objection deadlines set for September 28, 2026. Damages class members must submit claims within 30 days of final approval. RG/2 Claims Administration LLC was appointed as settlement and claims administrator. The court ordered the parties to move for final approval by November 30, 2026, and to file any motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards by December 11, 2026. A final fairness hearing is scheduled before Chief Judge Eagles on January 8, 2027, at the L. Richardson Preyer Courthouse in Greensboro, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's decision dated June 29, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8rZJuh from PacerMonitor.com NBT BANCORP: Medina Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ NOEMI MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBT BANCORP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04241 (E.D. Pa., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and Overtime Law. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee at the Defendant's retail branches in Millerton, New York and Charlton, Connecticut from in or around August 2016 through June 2024. NBT Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company, headquartered in Norwich, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ-SWIDLER, LLC 123 South 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (856) 282-1336 Email: mmiller@swartz-legal.com NEW YORK: Parties Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS G. by his next friend, MARY C., by her next friend, MARC A., by his next friend, H. D., by his next friend, and ANDRE W., by his next friend, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated patients at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, v. ANN SULLIVAN, M.D., Commissioner, New York State Office of Mental Health, in her official capacity; LUKISHA HOMER, Ph.D., Executive Director, Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, in her official capacity; NICOLE WIMBERGER, M.D., Clinical Director, Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, in her official capacity; RAENELLE ROBLES, Director of Risk Management, Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, in her official capacity; CORDELLE YORK, Chief of Service, Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, in her official capacity, Case No. 1:05-cv-04310-ENV-PCG (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (a) certifying for settlement purposes all causes of action asserted in the second amended complaint, (b) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Nicholas G., Mary C., Marc A., H.D., and Andre W., each by his or her Next Friend, as Class Representatives, (c) preliminarily appointing MHLS Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Second Judicial Department as Class Counsel; (d) preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; (e) authorizing the parties' proposed notice and process for giving notice to the class; and (e) scheduling a final fairness hearing. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AeijTG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill Krol, Esq. Ana Vuk-Pavlovic, Esq. Georgeann Caporal Papadakos, Esq. Timothy Riselvato, Esq. MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE Second Judicial Department 600 Old Country Road, Suite 224 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-3975 - and - Austin J. Green, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 E-mail: A.J.Green@weil.com The Defendants are represented by: Owen T. Conroy, Esq. Adam J. Sansolo, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-6382 E-mail: Owen.Conroy@ag.ny.gov Adam.sansolo@ag.ny.gov NOBU HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Use of Synthetic Fragranced Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- CELESTIAL FRIED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOBU HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-06743 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) seeks for damages, injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's use of synthetic fragranced consumer products, which consist of complex mixtures of solvents with extracts, synthetic compounds, resins or some combination. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendant exposed tens of thousands even at a conservative estimate of individuals to these pollutants, without warning, and without regard to the short term, long term and/or discriminatory impact upon disabled persons of Defendant's reckless conduct. Accordingly, the employment of these fragranced compounds leaves visitors unsuspecting of other dangerous conditions, says the suit. Nobu Hospitality, LLC owns and operates hotel chains. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com LegalDept@colevannote.com NORTH STAR: Richardson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Contractors ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON RICHARDSON, JESSE CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH STAR RECOVERY LLC and JUSTIN R. NIELSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01905 (W.D. Mich., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. Plaintiffs Richardson and Carter worked for the Defendants as purported independent contractors from October 2025 through January 2026 and from February 2025 through January 2026, respectively. North Star Recovery LLC is a vehicle recovery services provider in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON, PC 30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 444 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: (412) 593-8106 Email: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net OREGON: Packaging Law "Unconstitutional," Lollicup USA Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Rachal of Packaging Dive, reports that Lollicup USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded Karat Packaging, is leading a class action lawsuit against Leah Feldon, director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, over Oregon's extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging law, known as the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. -- Lollicup's attorneys filed the lawsuit on June 25 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland. The plaintiff wants the law to be declared unconstitutional and for there to be an injunction against enforcement. -- The lawsuit cites an ongoing case in Oregon brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors last year. Lollicup seeks to represent producers that were not covered by a preliminary injunction currently blocking enforcement of the law for NAW members. Dive Insight: Lollicup USA's complaint calls Oregon's EPR law "an unprecedented experiment in privatized regulation." The Texas-based company manufactures and distributes food serviceware, including PET thermoformed cups and trays, polypropylene containers and polycoated paperboard cups, as well as plastic lids, straws and cutlery. The plaintiff said it ships items to the Oregon market from California, and to comply Oregon's law it would have to implement "significant operational changes at those California-based facilities," among other burdens. As with NAW's case, Lollicup's complaint alleges that Oregon's EPR implementation violates the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Referring to Oregon's selected producer responsibility organization, Circular Action Alliance, the complaint says the law in part "conscripts a national supply chain into a state-specific regulatory regime that is opaque, retrospective, unilaterally revisable, judicially unreviewable, and administered by a private actor whose founding members and board are the very industry participants the Act empowers them to regulate." Lollicup has been a registered producer in Oregon since Sept. 25, 2025, according to the complaint. Since then, the company has been warned multiple times by CAA and DEQ about noncompliance issues. "CAA's founding members and board members occupy both sides of the regulatory relationship: they sit on the body that sets the fees, and they receive the incentives and fee adjustments that the body grants," the complaint states. "Mid-size and smaller producers – including Lollicup – have no comparable access to the fee-setting machinery and no representation on the board that sets it." NAW filed its federal lawsuit in Oregon court last July after Oregon became the first U.S. state to kick off a packaging EPR program. NAW's lawsuit targeted the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Environmental Commission and Oregon Attorney General Daniel Rayfield. Added between 1st and 2nd edit: All the while, CAA has continued to collect and dole out funds in Oregon, including rolling out thousands of recycling carts in the state. Lollicup's case was assigned to Judge Michael Simon, who is also presiding over the NAW case that is due to go to trial starting July 13. Discovery in the Lollicup case is to be completed by Oct. 23, and a pretrial order is due by Nov. 23, according to the court docket. Lollicup's case is the latest to challenge state packaging EPR laws. Last week, Nebraska's attorney general filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of 17 state attorneys general challenging California's packaging EPR law, which NAW also joined as the sole participating business entity. That case alleges violations to the Commerce Clause and the First Amendment, among other issues. [GN] ORVIS COMPANY: Tolentino Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ANN TOLENTINO, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE ORVIS COMPANY, INC., DBA ORVIS, Case No. 26-2-17031-2 (Filed May 26, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 25, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02213 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts that Orvis violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and a putative class defined as: "All Washington residents who, during the Class Period, received a commercial email sent by the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, or with the Defendant's assistance, that contained messaging in the email subject line which misrepresented the facts of a sale, deal or promotion." The Plaintiff seeks an award of actual or liquidated damages as permitted per class member, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of suit. Orvis is an American family-owned retail and mail-order business which specializes in selling fly fishing, hunting and sporting goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Vitruk, Esq. Jeffrey H. Adams, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 332-1380 Facsimile: (206) 624-7317 E-mail: avitruk@bakerlaw.com jhadams@bakerlaw.com OSWEGO HEALTH: Transmits Web User's Personal Info to Third Parties ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVA PERRY, JACQUELINE FLETCHER, and DEBRA L. GILMORE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OSWEGO HEALTH, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01294-BKS-CBF (N.D.N.Y., June 25, 2026) seeks to remedy harms for the Plaintiffs and a class of all others similarly situated and asserts causes of action for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the New York's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, Oswego invites patients to search for and share detailed information about their own physical and mental health via its Web Properties. And patients, trusting that this information will be safeguarded, in fact share their most intimate and personal medical information with Oswego through the Web Properties. Oswego generates approximately $233 million dollars in annual revenue. As part of the medical services it provides, Oswego owns, operates, controls, and maintains a website, https://www.oswegohealth.org/. The Website allows current and potential Oswego patients, inter alia, to search for and view medical providers and services, hospital and office locations, and various wellness resources. Oswego also operates, controls, and maintains two web-based patient portals. Oswego's patient Portals allow Oswego patients, inter alia, to remotely access their medical records, review their test results, schedule and view appointments, renew their prescriptions, and pay outstanding medical bills. Despite this, and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, Oswego did exactly that, installing tracking technologies on its Web Properties to collect information -- including Users' Private Information -- from the Users and disclosing that information to unauthorized third parties like Google for Oswego's own pecuniary gain, says the suit. Oswego is a regional healthcare system which serves Oswego County, New York, and the surrounding areas through its hospital, multiple urgent care centers, laboratory and imaging facilities, and multi-specialty medical group of over 100 physicians and medical providers. Oswego offers a broad range of primary and specialty care services, including cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, ENT, general surgery, pulmonology, urology, and bariatrics, and it provides both hospital-based and outpatient care across the region.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 315 Madison Ave., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 979-3642 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com PACIFIC MARKET: Hernandez et al. Sue Over Defective Stanley Product ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUGO HERNANDEZ, GINA DAVIS, and WILLIAM WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC; PMI WW BRANDS, LLC; AND THE HAVI GROUP, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02083 (W.D. Wash., June 13, 2026), arises from Defendants' failure to disclose latent defect of their Stanley Classic bottles and thermoses. The Plaintiffs maintain that the said products are defectively designed and/or manufactured such that, under normal and intended use, the handle clip assembly progressively fails, causing the handle to detach suddenly and without warning during use. Despite knowledge of handle failures causing severe burns and other injuries, Defendants continued to manufacture, market, and sell these products without disclosure of the defect or adequate warnings. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and assert claims for breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the North Carolina Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Headquartered Seattle, WA, Pacific Market International, LLC manufactures and distributes premium insulated drinkware products under the Stanley brand, including vacuum bottles, thermos products, and travel mugs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 16212 Reitan Road NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (984) 257-5987 E-mail: alemmon@brysonpllc.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 790-6520 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7782 E-mail: eruben@leesegui.com tpacheco@leesegui.com - and - Daniel Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 815-4843 E-mail: dbryson@brysonpllc.com - and - Ronald Rodriguez, Esq. Ronald C. Rodriguez, Esq. Athena A. Rodriguez, Esq. TEXAS PERSONAL INJURY EXPERTS, PLLC 1609 Nueces Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (833) 300-0000 E-mail: ron@ronaldrodriguez.com rcr@ronaldrodriguez.com athena@txpilaw.com PASSCO COMPANIES: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Thompson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- AALIYAH THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PASSCO COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01607 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or around August 7, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Passco Companies, LLC is a real estate investment company, with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California. [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 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PEABODY ENERGY: McGeachy Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN MCGEACHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION, JAMES C. GRECH, MARK A. SPURBECK and MARC E. HATHHORN, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-01020 (E.D. Mo., June 25, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody Energy common stock between October 14, 2024 to May 4, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Peabody Energy's expected longwall production rates at its Centurion mine for fiscal year 2026. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence and repeated statements assuring investors of the Company's ability to fully ramp-up Centurion by March 2026. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Peabody Energy's Centurion mine and the multitude of issues causing delays to the ramp-up and the return to full longwall production dates, asserts the complaint. Investors began to question the veracity of Defendants' public statements on March 30, 2026, when Peabody Energy issued a press release lowering guidance pertaining to Centurion mine's expected first quarter 2026 output ahead of the Company's full earnings release. In pertinent part, the Defendants announced that sales volume from the Centurion mine was expected to deliver approximately 250,000 tons in the first quarter due to mining commissioning challenges, says the suit. The full truth finally emerged on May 5, 2026, when Peabody Energy issued a press release disclosing the Company's failure to ramp-up Centurion by the long-awaited March 2026 deadline and cutting guidance related to full year met segment volumes to reflect the increased cost and substantial volume decrease. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Peabody Energy's revelation. The price of Peabody Energy's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $26.52 per share on May 4, 2026, Peabody Energy's stock price fell to $25.00 per share on May 5, 2025, a decline of 5.7%, says the suit. Peabody Energy Corporation is a producer of metallurgic and thermal coat. The Company owns interests in 16 active coal mining operations in the United States and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Christopher Wehrle, Esq. WEHRLE LAW LLC 2601 S. Hanley Rd. St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 272-4113 Facsimile: (314) 272-4107 E-mail: chris@wehrlelaw.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PENINSULA ON JAMES: Faces Posa Suit Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA POSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENINSULA ON JAMES ISLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2026-CP-10-03211 (S.C. Comm. Pl., Charleston Cty., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, breach of contract, and failure to allow inspection of records. The case arises from the Defendants alleged breach of their fiduciary owed directly to unit owners at 700 Daniel Ellis Drive, Unit 8104, Charleston, South Carolina in connection with the governance and management of the Peninsula on James Island Owners Association. Moreover, the Association and its Board failed to timely and adequately address known structural deficiencies affecting the common elements of the Peninsula on James Island Horizontal Property Regime and refused to permit inspection of records relating to the engineering services and repair planning, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated unit owners suffered damages, alleges the suit. Peninsula on James Island Owners Association, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business in Charleston, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua F. Evans, Esq. JOSH EVANS LAW, LLC P.O. Box 1088 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 270-3480 Email: josh@joshevanslaw.com - and - Christopher P. Deters, Esq. ROMEO DETERS, LLC 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 305 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 806-4906 Email: cdeters@romeodeters.com PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to conventionally file USB flash drives containing Exhibits to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them leave to conventionally file two USB flash drives: a. The first containing Exhibits G, H, K, M, N, X to their motion for class certification in their native formats, to be maintained under seal. b. The second containing Exhibit L to their motion for class certification in their native formats, to be maintained on the public docket. Exhibits G, H, K, L, M, N, X are unable to be scanned and uploaded to CM/ECF because they constitute native files, such as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. On June 15, 2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Parties' joint motion to seal Exhibits in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification PetMeds is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy and online provider of prescription and nonprescription medications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QQO5dN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. Jeffrey E. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: creilly@mrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com jmarcus@mrpfirm.com PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs have alleged and established that PetMeds engaged in a concerted and systemic pattern of assisting third parties with eavesdropping and intercepting the contents of the Plaintiffs' and class members' confidential communications. Because this conduct extends across individuals who purchased veterinary medications on PetMeds' website, Plaintiffs seek to appoint their attorneys as class counsel and certify the following classes: Nationwide Class: "All individuals in the United States who purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com from Oct. 25, 2021, to April 10, 2025." Meta Nationwide Subclass: "All individuals in the United States who: 1) purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com from Oct. 21, 2021 to April 10, 2025; 2) completed the purchase using a first name, last name, and email address that is associated with a Facebook account; and 3) appears in Meta's records with a purchase event for a Content ID associated with prescription medication." California Class: "All individuals who purchased prescription mediation through 1800petmeds.com with a shipping address in California from Oct. 21, 2021, to April 10, 2025." Meta California Subclass: "All individuals who: 1) purchased prescription medication through 1800petmeds.com with a shipping address in California from October 21, 2021 to April 10, 2025; 2) completed the purchase using a first name, last name, and email address that is associated with a Facebook account; and 3) appears in Meta's records with a purchase event for a Content ID associated with prescription medication." PetMeds expanded their surveillance efforts between 2021 and 2025, integrating and activating numerous other tracking technologies into its website, including the Attentive Tag and Zeta Pixel, the suit alleges. PetMeds is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy and online provider of prescription and nonprescription medications. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QBBYpL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: creilly@mrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com PHARMERICA CORPORATION: "Lurry" Deal Has Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jaketrius Lurry, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PharMerica Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action Lead Case No. 3:23-cv-297-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a nationwide class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative service awards, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 29, 2026. PharMerica is a pharmacy services provider for healthcare facilities nationwide. Plaintiffs alleged that in March 2023 a ransomware gang targeted PharMerica's computer network and exfiltrated 4.7 terabytes of information, including Plaintiffs' personal identifiable and protected health information. Individual complaints were consolidated, and a Consolidated Class Action Complaint followed. On June 12, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part PharMerica's motion to dismiss. The parties and reached a settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as all living persons in the United States who were provided notice of the Data Incident, excluding PharMerica's directors and officers, government entities, opt-outs, and the Court and its staff. PharMerica agreed to pay 5,275,000.00 dollars into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund. A separate Claims-Made Fund allows Class Members to recover documented out-of-pocket expenses up to 10,000.00 dollars each and one year of Kroll Complete Monitoring, covering credit and dark web monitoring, identity theft restoration, and 1,000,000.00 dollars in fraud insurance with no deductible. PharMerica also agreed to adopt Business Practice Changes to its data security systems. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on January 12, 2026. Kroll's notice reached approximately 73.72 percent of the Settlement Class, or 1.45 million members, generating four timely opt-outs, one late opt-out, and no objections. A Final Approval Hearing was held on May 12, 2026, after which the Court requested supplemental briefing on commonality in light of Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, and on the reasonableness of the requested fees. The Court found commonality satisfied because the Data Incident was a single, identifiable event turning on common questions about the adequacy of PharMerica's cybersecurity practices, and it certified the Settlement Class for purposes of entry of judgment. On adequacy of relief, the Court noted the claims rate rose to 0.50 percent, consistent with rates approved in comparable data breach settlements, and that all Class Members automatically receive one year of monitoring regardless of whether they filed a claim. On fees, Class Counsel sought 3,481,750.00 dollars, with 1,740,750.00 dollars payable from the Settlement Fund and 1,741,000.00 dollars payable directly by PharMerica. The Court applied the percentage-of-the-fund method, weighed the six Bowling v. Pfizer factors, and cross-checked the award against a lodestar of approximately 1,172,900.42 dollars, yielding a multiplier of 2.96, within the range ordinarily approved in large class actions. The fee request was granted, as was Plaintiffs' request for 88,328.16 dollars in litigation costs, including expenses tied to accessing the Limited Access Death Master File to identify deceased Class Members. The Court also granted service awards of 3,500.00$ to each of the six named Plaintiffs, David Hibbard, Frank Raney, James Young, Holly Williams, Micaela Molina, and Charley Luther, finding the amount roughly ten times the average unnamed Class Member's recovery and consistent with awards approved in similar data breach litigation. The Court ordered that the Action and all Released Claims against PharMerica be dismissed with prejudice, that Class Members who did not timely opt out are permanently barred from asserting Released Claims, and that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over implementation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk was directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 54(b). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hqL4dc from PacerMonitor.com PHH MORTGAGE: Settlement Class in Williams Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONIA WILLIAMS AND BEVERLY DANTZLER, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00144-KDB-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Bell entered an order as follows: -- The Settlement Class, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California, and North Carolina Classes, preliminarily certified by the Court on Feb. 4, 2026, are finally certified for settlement purposes only, as it fully satisfies all the applicable requirements of Rule 23 and due process. -- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court awards Class Counsel for the Settlement Class Attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $283,539.82, comprising $275,536 in attorneys' fees and $8,003.82 in expenses. The Court also awards the Plaintiffs $5,000 each in Service Awards, for a total of $10,000. The Attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards shall be paid on an equal basis from the settlement funds, with $97,846.61 in total attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards being paid from each of the three settlement funds. The Agreement describes a Settlement Class, defined to include each of the following: The FDCPA Class: "All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in the United States (1) whose mortgage loans were serviced by PHH; (2) to which PHH acquired servicing rights when such loans were 30 or more days delinquent on their loan payment obligations; and (3) to whom, according to PHH's records, one or more Notices of Default were sent between Dec. 18, 2022 and Dec. 15, 2025." Excluded from the FDCPA Class are (a) PHH's board members and executive level officers; and (b) the federal district and magistrate judges assigned to this Action, along with persons within the third degree of relationship to them. The California Class: "All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in the State of California whose loans were serviced by PHH, and to whom, according to PHH's records, one or more Notices of Default were sent between Dec. 18, 2022, and Dec. 15, 2025." Excluded from the California Class are (a) PHH's board members and executive level officers; and (b) the federal district and magistrate judges assigned to this Action, along with persons within the third degree of relationship to them. The North Carolina Class: "All borrowers on residential mortgage loans secured by mortgaged property in the State of North Carolina whose loans were serviced by PHH, and to whom, according to PHH's records, one or more Notices of Default were sent between Jan. 14, 2021, and Dec. 15, 2025." Excluded from the North Carolina class are (a) PHH's board members and executive level officers; and (b) the federal district and magistrate judges assigned to this Action, along with persons within the third degree of relationship to them. PHH agreed to create three $500,000 Settlement Funds for the Settlement Class, the FDCPA, California, and North Carolina Settlement Funds, for a total amount of $1,500,000. The Defendant is a fully integrated mortgage servicer and lender. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KD8SoI at no extra charge.[CC] PHOK PRODUCTIONS: Yearwood Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as RICARDO YEARWOOD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHOK PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; PETER PHOK, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV37676, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06941 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts wage-and-hour claims against the Defendants under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Phok Productions, LLC is an independent film and digital content production company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com jessica.liu@zimmreed.com PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Wolfclan Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN and ZAKERY BONDS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. PIERCE COUNTY; PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL; PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF ED TROYER; PIERCE COUNTY CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS PATTI JACKSON; CAPTAIN MATTHEW DOBSON; and SERGEANT ANTHONY MASTANDREA, Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Zilly entered an order as follows: (1) The well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R") is modified and adopted; (2) The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of the Defendants' expert Daniel Rapp is granted; (3) The Defendants' amended motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts James Platt, Stephen Sinclair, and Matthew Call is denied, except that, as indicated in the R&R, defendants may raise issues relating to the scope of Call's expert testimony in "an appropriately timed motion in limine"; (4) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted, as follows: (a) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), a class is certified and shall comprise: "All detainees who are presently held, or were held during the period from May 2, 2020, to the present, in any cell blocks at Pierce County Jail having unremedied plumbing defects leading to unsanitary living conditions, and all detainees who will be held in those cell blocks in the future"; (b) Named plaintiffs Echota C. Wolfclan and Zakery Bonds are appointed as class representatives; (c) Jenna M. Poligo and J. Scott Pritchard of the firm Stoel Rives LLP3 and Mark P. Walters and Mitchell D. West of the firm Lowe Graham Jones PLLC are appointed as class counsel; and (5) This matter is re-referred to Magistrate Judge Vaughan for further proceedings. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XC70X8 at no extra charge.[CC] POD LLC: Urbina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------ PASCUAL URBINA, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. POD, LLC, d/b/a "PAINTERS ON DEMAND," and SIR PAINTER, LLC, also d/b/a "PAINTERS ON DEMAND," Defendants, Case No. 9:26-cv-80763-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2026) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time painter from approximately December 22, 2024 to March 15, 2026, or approximately one year and 3 months. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid for all regular hours worked, and he was not paid for any overtime hours worked, as required by law. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. Due to Plaintiff's complaints about unpaid regular and overtime wages, the Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating him on March 15, alleges the suit. POD, LLC, d/b/a Painters on Demand, is a commercial painting and contracting business headquartered in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com POLITICO LLC: Intercepts Website User's Communication, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES OROZCO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. POLITICO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:26-cv-03560 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.politico.com, a political news platform that Defendant operates and provides for public access and use pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive personal subject matter, including pages addressing LGBTQ political topics, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of his communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was searching for and reading, the page titles identifying in plain English the subject matter of those pages, the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation paths, and persistent identifiers tying those communications to Plaintiff across browsing sessions. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs and page titles reflecting in human-readable terms what users are searching for and reading on the Website, and transmits those contents to multiple distinct third party entities for those third parties' independent commercial use, the suit says. The Defendant's conduct also gives rise to additional state-law claims under the Unfair Competition Law; the right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution; the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion; and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of one of his browsing sessions. The Defendant operates and controls the Website and is responsible for the configuration, embedding, and deployment of the described tracking technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com PREFERRED BANK: Intercepts Website User's Communications, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. PREFERRED BANK, a California chartered commercial bank, Case No. 1:26-cv-04913-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 25, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.preferredbank.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act. During her use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that the Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of her communications and reveal her personal and sensitive browsing activity, including her verbatim on-site search queries and communications reflecting her interest in debt-consolidation and other consumer finance products and tools, the suit says. Accordingly, the Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what she was browsing, the verbatim page titles, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish their commercial objectives, including identity resolution, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the suit. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of her own browsing session. Counsel caused a technical investigation to be conducted that replicated URLs and user flows presented in Plaintiff's HAR file and that documented the third-party tracking transmissions described in this Complaint. The figures and screenshots reproduced below are from that investigation and are included herein as illustrative examples of how the Website's tracking technologies operated when Plaintiff visited the Website. The Defendant owns, operates, and provides the website for public access and use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com PRIMA FRUTTA: Trial in Barrera Suit Set for August 17 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRMA BARRERA; et al., v. PRIMA FRUTTA PACKAGING, INC.; et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01454-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered a final pretrial order as follows: -- Trial is scheduled for Monday, Aug. 17, 2026. -- The filing deadline for motions in limine is July 27, 2026. Opposition briefs are due by Aug. 3, 2026. Reply briefs are due by Aug. 10, 2026. A hearing to rule on the motions in limine will take place on Aug. 17, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2. -- The parties shall file a Final Joint Exhibit List no later than Aug. 10, 2026. Prima packs and supplies California-grown cherries and apples for commercial buyers. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOCEqa at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Discovery in MOVEit MDL Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Progress Software Corp/MA 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 30, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for MOVEit MDL and class certification briefing is set to start on August 28, 2026. On the evening of May 28, 2023, the Company learned that its MOVEit Transfer (the on-premise version) and MOVEit Cloud (a cloud-hosted version of MOVEit Transfer) products were attacked by a threat actor who compromised and exfiltrated personal data from various customer-controlled MOVEit Transfer environments (the "MOVEit Vulnerability"). As a result of the MOVEit Vulnerability, the Company is party to certain class action lawsuits filed by individuals who claim to have been impacted by the exfiltration of data from the environments of the Company's MOVEit Transfer customers, which have been centralized in multi-district litigation in the District of Massachusetts (the "MDL"). The MDL has also consolidated an insurance subrogation complaint, where an insurer is seeking recovery for expenses incurred on behalf of its insured in connection with the MOVEit Vulnerability, and, as of the date of this filing, one customer cross-claim. Motions to dismiss were filed and partially granted in July 2025, and then further partially granted in January 2026 in response to the Company's motions for reconsideration. In all, the court has dismissed, in whole or in part, 23 of the 33 claims asserted by the bellwether plaintiffs in the MDL. The court has ordered the conclusion of fact discovery by Sept. 29, 2026, and directed that the filing of class certification briefing will begin on Aug. 28, 2026, and continue into the fourth quarter of 2026. The Company disclosed that the MDL is not expected to conclude within the next 12 months. Additionally, the Company has cooperated with inquiries and investigations from various governmental authorities relating to the MOVEit Vulnerability. A number of these matters have been formally closed and, as of the date of this filing, have not resulted in any prosecution or enforcement actions. Progress Software Corp. is a software company that provides infrastructure software for the development, deployment and management of business applications. The company serves enterprises, software vendors and service providers worldwide across a variety of industries. PROPHASE LABS: GIPA Class Action Remains at Pleading Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- ProPhase Labs, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2026, that the GIPA class suit remains at the pleading stage at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In October 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, Portillo v. Nebula Genomics, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Illinois's Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) alleging that Nebula improperly shared customers' genetic information with third parties without written consent. The action named Nebula along with Meta Platforms, Google, and Microsoft. The dispute was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in accordance with Nebula's Terms of Use, which mandated that claims be brought in Massachusetts. The complaint remains at the pleading stage. In addition to the motion to change venue, Nebula filed a motion to dismiss. While the allegations raise reputational and legal risks, no judgment or settlement has been entered and potential liability is not reasonably estimable at this time. Accordingly, management does not consider this litigation to be material to the consolidated financial statements as of the date of this prospectus. ProPhase Labs, Inc. is a diversified diagnostics, genomics, and consumer products company focused on diagnostic testing services, genomics research, and over-the-counter health products. The company operates through various subsidiaries to provide laboratory services and health-focused consumer offerings in the United States. PROSPECT MEDICAL: Withholds Employer Contributions, Zweben Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN ZWEBEN and JESSICA KLINE, on behalf of themselves, the Prospect Medical Retirement Savings Plan A, and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., BLACK COMPANIES I-X, and JOHN DOES I-X, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-06548 (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 including breaches of the duty of loyalty, breaches of the duties of prudence, prohibited transactions, prohibited self-dealing, and co-fiduciary liability. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to collect and deposit employer matching contributions in the Prospect Medical Retirement Savings Plan A ("Savings Plan") of its employees, including the Plaintiffs, and allocate those amounts to their retirement accounts. The Defendant instead withheld employer matching contributions from the Savings Plan and expended them for the benefit of Prospect Medical and its affiliates and subsidiaries. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees suffered losses, says the suit. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., is a healthcare company headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Lewis, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 463-3900 Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison E. Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com - and - Gary A. Gotto, Esq. Christopher Graver, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 248-0088 Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com cgraver@kellerrohrback.com - and - Erin M. Riley, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Email: eriley@kellerrohrback.com PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Calderon Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP CALDERON, FARSHAD PINCHASI, ALLISON FIELDS, and DANA FOLGAR, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02320-FB-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for preliminary settlement approval, preliminary class certification, and appointment of class counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the Plaintiffs' motion and (1) grant preliminary approval; (2) certify the proposed Rule 23 Settlement Class; (3) appoint the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (4) authorize notice to similarly situated employees; (5) appoint Atticus Administration as Settlement Administrator and authorize it to send and post the proposed Notices to the proposed Settlement Classes; and (6) set a Final Fairness Hearing for no earlier than 150 days following the grant of Preliminary Approval. The proposed settlement provides significant monetary and non-monetary relief to the class and is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this bona fide dispute. Public Partnerships provides financial services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QyVT2k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hugh Baran, Esq. Emma Walters, Esq. Avi Kumin, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 759-4501 E-mail: baran@katzbanks.com walters@katzbanks.com kumin@katzbanks.com - and - Elizabeth Saylor, Esq. B. Franco Olshansky, Esq. Richard Blum, Esq. Rebekah Cook-Mack, Esq. Michael Diller, Esq. Rebecca Antar, Esq. Belkys Garcia, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, Fl 5 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (332) 227-7291 E-mail: esaylor@legal-aid.org bfrancoolshansky@legal-aid.org rblum@legal-aid.org rcook-mack@legal-aid.org mdiller@legal-aid.org rantar@legal-aid.org brgarcia@legal-aid.org RANGER STATION: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Bishop Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANGER STATION SUPPLY CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05096 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.rangerstation.co, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ranger Station Supply Co., LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal RDO EQUIPMENT: Faces Palacios Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTURO PALACIOS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RDO EQUIPMENT CO.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03120 (E.D. Wash., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a parts specialist and/or a similar job title/position from approximately February 2022 through September 2025. RDO Equipment Co. is a machinery retail and support business in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Matthew E. Crawford, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com mcrawford@crosnerlegal.com REBATH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Bathworks Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bathworks Enterprises LLC, v. ReBath LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04437-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order granting in part and denying in part Re-Bath's motion to dismiss. The Court further orders as follows: The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed within 4 weeks of the date of this order. It is the responsibility of plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and prepare the Joint Case Management Report. Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively participate in the Rule 26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the Joint Case Management Report. The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Order containing all the proposed dates at the same time they file the Rule 26(f) Case Management Report. The proposed Case Management Order must also be emailed in Word format to Lanham_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov. Bathworks did not file this case until November 2025 and offers no convincing argument for tolling the limitations period. Thus, any claim based on Re-Bath's alleged failure to disclose the consolidated technology fee in the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) is time-barred. Because Bathworks alleges intentional concealment rather than mere nondisclosure, the claim does not fail for lack of an independent duty to disclose. Accordingly, the fraudulent-concealment claim may proceed to the extent it is based on allegedly unauthorized technology-fee withdrawals on or after Nov. 26, 2024. Bathworks alleges Re-Bath charged unauthorized fees, misused advertising funds, restricted local marketing efforts, and then retaliated against it for challenging that conduct in court. The Defendant is a company that franchises residential bathroom remodeling businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LnVBHS at no extra charge.[CC] REBOOT LABS: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REBOOT LABS, LLC D/B/A PLUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02993 (D. Minn., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.plunge.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Reboot Labs, LLC, doing business as Plunge, is a company that sells online goods and services in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com REGAL CINEMAS: Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORFIRIO GARZA, v. REGAL CINEMAS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01941-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order denying Garza's motion to appoint interim class counsel without prejudice. Because there are "no competing lawsuits or firms," the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint interim class counsel at this time. The Plaintiff is a former employee at a Regal Cinemas theatre in Mountlake Terrace. Regal owns and operates movie theaters. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDxHP8 at no extra charge.[CC] REPLIMUNE GROUP: Continues to Defend Jboor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Replimune Group, Inc. 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 29, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jboor federal securities class suit and the consolidated derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On July 24, 2025, a class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the Company and its directors and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District of Massachusetts. The complaint, captioned Jboor v. Replimune Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12085-JEK, was filed shortly after the Company announced it received a complete response letter from the FDA for its RP1 BLA for the treatment of advanced melanoma on July 22, 2025 and the subsequent decline in the trading price of the Company's common stock. The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff, or the Lead Plaintiff. On January 13, 2026, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Following the second complete response letter issued by the FDA on April 10, 2026 for the Company's RP1 BLA for the treatment of advanced melanoma, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in the class action that addresses the second complete response letter. The Company's and the other defendants response to the second amended complaint is due July 20, 2026. The Company and the other defendants deny any wrongdoing and continue to vigorously defend this action. Additionally, following the class action complaint, three shareholders filed separate derivative actions on behalf of the Company in the District of Massachusetts captioned Chea v. Patel et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12316-JEK, Wright v. Patel et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12401-WGY, and Vochten v. Patel et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12484-JEK. The plaintiffs allege substantially similar facts as the class action complaint and assert that the Company's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties. The parties have consolidated the derivative actions and agreed to a stay pending further developments in the class action. On September 10, 2025, the Company received a letter from a shareholder demanding that the Company's board of directors take action to address alleged wrongdoing by certain directors and officers. The demand letter alleged substantially similar facts as the class action and derivative action complaints. The board of directors determined to defer action on the demand pending further developments in the class action. Replimune Group, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the development of oncolytic immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer. The company is advancing a pipeline of product candidates, including RP1, designed to enhance anti-tumor immune responses. RESIDENT HOME: Discloses Consumer Data to 3rd Party, Ramirez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELBA RAMIREZ, DEBBIE AKEL, and LUIS PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RESIDENT HOME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-06020 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's interception and disclosure of its customers' personally identifiable information, and product purchase information to unknown third parties. According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables third parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by the Plaintiffs and Class members on the websites that it owns and operates without obtaining prior consent. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered damages. Resident Home, LLC is a retail company, headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com REWIRE NEWS: Intercepts Website User's Communication, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE ST. MARY, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. REWIRE NEWS GROUP, a Virginia non-profit corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-06956 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used rewirenewsgroup.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. During her use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of her communications and reveal her content interests. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what she was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. Accordingly, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting in human readable terms what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the suit. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of one of her own browsing sessions. The Defendant provides the website for public access and use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert. Hearing in Preciado Set for August 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Preciado v. RugsUSA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01243 (D. Colo., Filed April 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting in part and denying in part joint motion requesting a hearing regarding plaintiff's motion for class certification and requesting that the scheduled final pretrial conference be vacated. The Court sets the Motion for Class Certification, for a Hearing on August 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A 702. The hearing may be vacated by the Court if, at a later date, it is determined that the hearing is unnecessary in resolving the motion. The Final Pretrial Conference set for August 11, 2026 and the August 4, 2026 deadline for the parties to submit a Proposed Final Pretrial Order are vacated and will be reset at a later date. Additionally, if either side wishes to file a motion for summary judgment, the parties are ordered to notify Chambers by email of their intent within 30 days after the Court's order deciding the Motion for Class Certification and consistent with this Court's Standing Order Regarding Rule 56 Motions. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. RugsUSA sells home furnishings and decor products.[CC] RXO LAST: Deprives Delivery Drivers' Wages, Mico Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- TOLJAN MICO, EVARISTO GARCIA, EDWIN ABREU, LEONARDO HERNANDEZ, ADELINO LOPES, ABDULKADIR ABDISALAM, LUISAMEL CORNELIO, ALENO GOMES, GENESIS VARGAS, ANDRES JUNIOR JOSEPH TAVARES, BLEDAR DEMALIJA, MOHAMED MOHAMED, MARGARITA PENA, ESMERALDA SAN ANDRES, ANGEL REINOSO, ALEX JULES LACHAPPEL, LEONADLY LOPEZ, and DANIELSON FERREIRA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-12899-MJJ (D. Mass., June 25, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of current and former Massachusetts delivery drivers of RXO, who were deprived of wages due to them under the Massachusetts Wage Act. According to the complaint, in order to do this work, RXO required the Plaintiffs, as well as the other members of the class, to sign an agreement which stated that the drivers were independent contractors. Although RXO classified the Plaintiffs and class members as independent contractors, the control manifested over the drivers by RXO as well as the drivers' inability to maintain an independently established business demonstrates that they qualify as RXO's employees under the Massachusetts Wage Act, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves. In addition, the named Plaintiffs Andres Junior Joseph Tavares and Edwin Abreu bring this case on behalf of a class similarly situated persons who have worked as delivery drivers for RXO in Massachusetts and who were classified as independent contractors for statutory claims that stem from the same wage act violations. RXO is in the business of providing the delivery of retail merchandise to its customers. RXO provides delivery services for companies such as Peloton, Lowe's, Ikea, Amazon, and Samsung. In order to carry out this central function, RXO purports to contract with individuals such as Plaintiffs, to drive a delivery truck and to deliver retail merchandise to customers' homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com S. RAYS: Faces Bishop Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S. RAYS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05144 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shadyrays.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. S. Rays, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SAFEMOON LLC: Class Settlements in Combs Suit Get Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK COMBS, VLAD IACOB, and BENJAMIN NORTHEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SAFEMOON LLC, SAFEMOON US, LLC, SAFEMOON CONNECT, LLC, TANO LLC, SAFEMOON LTD, SAFEMOON PROTOCOL LTD, SAFEMOON MEDIA GROUP LTD, BRADEN JOHN KARONY, JACK HAINES-DAVIES, HENRY “HANK” WYATT, JAKE PAUL, KYLE NAGY, DeANDRE CORTEZ WAY, BEN PHILLIPS, MILES PARKS McCOLLUM, THOMAS SMITH and DANIEL M. KEEM, Case No. 2:22-cv-00642-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Barlow entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval of proposed class-action settlements; and -- denying the Defendant Karony's motion for coordination hearing. The court sets a Settlement Fairness Hearing for Oct. 22, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Because these proposed agreements use the same class definition as the SafeMoon agreement, the classes here are similarly described by a clear and objective definition. A cross-country coordination hearing is not necessary in this case. Mr. Karony, not SafeMoon US, is the defendant in the relevant criminal case. And the proposed SafeMoon settlement here already operates in conjunction with the bankruptcy proceedings. The risk of double recovery by class members is low, and the judicial process in this case would only be delayed by unnecessarily attempting to coordinate multiple cases as Mr. Karony suggests. Indeed, needless delay is the primary if not only likely result of Mr. Karony's request. Mr. Karony's coordination motion is denied The court preliminarily certifies a narrower class definition: "All persons and entities that (1) purchased SFM Tokens directly from SafeMoon US, LLC from March 8, 2021, through Nov. 1, 2023, or (2) saw a solicitation for SFM Tokens that was published by SafeMoon US, LLC and purchased SFM Tokens because of that solicitation from March 8, 2021, through Nov. 1, 2023." This case involves allegations that the SafeMoon entities and their executives, along with certain celebrity promoters, promoted and sold a cryptocurrency associated with SafeMoon. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions violated federal securities law. Safemoon was a cryptocurrency and blockchain company based in Pleasant Grove, Utah. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gksoNo at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Cris Tolomia, writing for QUARTZ, reports that Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron $MU -5.49% Technology were sued on June 25 in federal court over allegations of collusion and price-fixing in the commodity memory market. Filed in the Northern District of California, the complaint names 17 plaintiffs -- a mix of individuals and small businesses -- who claim the three chipmakers conspired to keep commodity DRAM artificially scarce in order to inflate prices, according to Wccftech. The case has been assigned to Judge Noel Wise, according to Appleworld.today. At the heart of the complaint is an accusation that all three companies exploited the industry's transition to High-Bandwidth Memory -- a chip architecture central to AI workloads -- as a pretext for winding down output of legacy formats including DDR3 and DDR4, according to Wccftech. Prices for commodity DRAM have climbed approximately 700% over a four-year span, a rise the plaintiffs attribute directly to the alleged supply manipulation, according to Appleworld.today. Among the remedies requested, the plaintiffs want the court to intervene and end what they describe as a deliberate, industry-wide production squeeze, and they are also pursuing treble damages, according to Appleworld.today. The lawsuit aims to represent a broader class of consumers and businesses that purchased products containing commodity DRAM during the price surge, according to Wccftech. The complaint also cites Apple $AAPL +4.84%'s recent price increases on iPads and Macs as evidence of the downstream impact of the alleged supply restrictions, according to Wccftech. The lawsuit points to prior conduct by the defendants to establish what it characterizes as a pattern of anti-competitive behavior. Criminal convictions from the 2000s figure into the complaint as well: the filing notes that Samsung and SK Hynix each entered guilty pleas on Department of Justice price-fixing charges during that era, with the cases producing a combined $731 million in fines and landing several executives behind bars, according to Wccftech. The named plaintiffs include individuals such as Marc Garciaguirre, Thomas Yu, and Thomas Barber, as well as small businesses including Troy's Computers LLC and JB Tech Solutions LLC, doing business as My Florida PC. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over DRAM Price-Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Garciaguirre, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; SK Hynix Inc.; SK Hynix America Inc.; Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-06345 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2026) seeks to recover for and stop concerted anticompetitive behavior by three oligopolists in the market for dynamic random access memory, more commonly called DRAM. DRAM is the backbone of nearly every computing device on Earth, from smartphones, to laptop computers, to data center servers. A processor reads from and writes to it constantly while a device runs; a smartphone holds several gigabytes of it; and a data-center server holds far more. According to the complaint, no general-purpose computer functions without DRAM, and nothing substitutes for it. Three firms -- Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron -- make almost all of the world's supply, together accounting for more than ninety percent of DRAM revenue. Since 2022, these firms have fixed supply and prices for DRAM, engaging in conduct that makes no economic sense absent collusion and that has driven up the price of conventional DRAM (sometimes called commodity DRAM) approximately 700% in a four-year period. The DRAM oligopolists have simultaneously cut production, coordinated a pivot to HBM and exit from DDR3 and DDR4, and otherwise decreased and locked up conventional DRAM supply while prices charged up with mind-blowing scale and rapidity. Yet contrary to all economic and business logic, the DRAM oligopolists each cut conventional DRAM supply further, with Micron going so far as to shutter its consumer DRAM business, Crucial, at the most profitable price point in its history. Prices continued to rise, and still Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron continued to squeeze conventional DRAM supply, simultaneously and publicly directing their resources toward less-profitable-per-die HBM—or in some cases, simply junking conventional DRAM supply channels altogether. This plan has thus far succeeded, as consumer purchasers of conventional DRAM and devices incorporating it have paid supracompetitive prices and have otherwise suffered the impacts of a distorted market crippled by the behavior of DRAM oligopolists that criminally fixed prices two decades ago -- then promoted the executives that did it when they got out of prison. And these price-fixing oligopolists stand ready to recoup even more from American consumers absent intervention from this court, says the suit. The Plaintiffs include Tyree Burnett Jr., Joseph Flores, Rodolfo Gurrola Jr., Brook Barclift, Theo Papulis, Jeff Ramirez Ochoa, Paul Henning, Troy's Computers LLC, JB Tech Solutions LLC, Evan Feliciano, Wastenotime Developments Performance Fabrications, Brian Graber, Joseph Danson, John Prineas, Thomas Yu, and Donald Barber. Mr. Garciaguirre resides in Pasadena, California. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Garciaguirre indirectly purchased conventional DRAM products manufactured by one or more Defendants by purchasing conventional DRAM at artificially inflated prices. Samsung Semiconductor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and serves as Samsung's United States semiconductor sales, marketing, and distribution arm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Allison Watson, Esq. Priscilla Ghita, Esq. 3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 E-mail: awatson@bathaeedunne.com pghita@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne., Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. Bryce Talbot, Esq. 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 E-mail: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com btalbot@bathaeedunne.com SERENDIPITY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Tipped Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SERENDIPITY RESTAURANT LLC, SERENDIPITY 3, INC., and 150 SQUARETIME LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05365 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2026) seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, uniform reimbursement, uniform maintenance, and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers -- servers, runners, bussers, bartenders, barbacks (Tipped Workers) who work or have worked at the Defendants' Restaurants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other Tipped Workers at both Restaurants with proper notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the FLSA and/or NYLL. In 2024, the Defendants opened a second location in Time Square, New York offering all the favorites from Serendipity 3 and more. The Defendants have been part of a single integrated enterprise that jointly employs Plaintiff and similarly situated Tipped Workers. Serendipity 3 is owned and operated by Serendipity Restaurant LLC and Serendipity 3, Inc. Serendipity Time Square is owned and operate by 150 Squaretime LLC. The iconic New York City Restaurant opened its doors in 1954 and has since continued to offer food and over the top desserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Katherine Bonilla, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 SERGIO ALBARRAN: Sequen Wins Bid for Final Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------ n the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN ARACELY PABLO SEQUEN, et al., v. SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-06487-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motions for final class certification and partial summary judgment as to their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, and -- Denying the government's counter-motions for partial summary judgment. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A), the Court vacates both the courthouse-arrest policies (i.e., Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Policy No. 11072.3, ICE Policy No. 11072.4, and Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 25-06) and the 12-hour detention waiver (i.e., ICE's June 24, 2025 memorandum titled "Nationwide Hold Room Waiver"). Because the provisionally certified classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for class certification. And because the record before the Court demonstrates that ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the two classes that the Court provisionally certified in November 2025: Courthouse-Arrest Class: "All persons who have an immigration court hearing in a proceeding on EOIR's non-detained docket in an immigration courthouse in ICE's San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility." Detention Class: "All persons who are now or will be detained in a holding cell in ICE's San Francisco Field Office." The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TsYGzp at no extra charge.[CC] SHERATON OPERATING: Seeks to Continue Deadline to File Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRIS ORTIZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHERATON OPERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MARIBEL SANDOVAL, an individual; Case No. 2:24-cv-05104-JAK-DMK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte application to continue the Defendant's current Sept. 14, 2026, deadline to file its Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 30 days. The Defendant's attorneys, Greg S. Labate and Eric T. Angel will be out of office on separate weeks between Aug. 10, 2026 and Sept. 14, 2026, on pre-paid family vacations. As a result, the Defendant will be severely prejudiced in opposing class certification if its Opposition deadline is not extended by a short period of time. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in April 2024 and has had two years to prepare and file her Motion for Class Certification. Yet, the Plaintiff sought and obtained an extension to file said motion. The Defendant met and conferred with the Plaintiff in an effort to obtain a short continuance through stipulation, but the Plaintiff refused to agree to extend the Defendant's time to file an Opposition. Sheraton operates public hotels and motels. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHjRmo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com calyn@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Eric T. Angel, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com eangel@sheppardmullin.com SIG SAUER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Schreiber Due April 23, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Schreiber, v. Sig Sauer Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02303-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Close of fact discovery as to class Dec. 15, 2026 Certification: Expert disclosure (initial) as to class Jan. 29, 2027 certification: Expert disclosures (rebuttal) as to Mar. 5, 2027 class certification: Expert discovery cutoff as to class Apr. 2, 2027 Certification: Motion for class certification: Apr. 23, 2027 Opposition to motion for class May 7, 2027 Certification: Reply in support of motion for class May 14, 2027 certification: Sig Sauer designs and manufactures firearms for military, law enforcement, and commercial markets. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5SKbsJ at no extra charge.[CC] SINOVAC BIOTECH: MW Gestion Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MW GESTION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled MW Gestion, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sinovac Biotech Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2025-0417-JTL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit is brought to redress the Defendants' breach of a rights agreement that Sinovac Biotech Ltd. enacted on March 28, 2016, in connection with a battle between Sinovac's chief executive officer (CEO) and a competing group of investors for control of the company. On Apr. 21, 2026, the Court entered an Order dismissing four Individual Defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate case is styled as MW Gestion, et al. v. Sinovac Biotech Ltd., et al., Case No. 26-245, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on June 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MW GESTION, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, PA 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 Email: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com tlydon@ashbygeddes.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. Brandon M. Cordovi, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com bcordovi@pomlaw.com Defendants-Appellees SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD., et al. are represented by: David J. Teklits, Esq. Alexandra M. Cumings, Esq. Jonathan H. Lloyd, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 Email: dteklits@morrisnichols.com acumings@morrisnichols.com jlloyd@morrisnichols.com - and - Michael A. Barlow, Esq. Shannon M. Doughty, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 302-4000 Email: michaelbarlow@quinnemanuel.com shannondoughty@quinnemanual.com - and - Corey Worcester, Esq. Margaret Schmidt, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 - and - Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 Email: dicamillo@rlf.com gallagher@rlf.com - and - Stephen P. Blake, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 426-7300 - and - Wendy Shidi Wu, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 SOLVENTUM CORP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Johnson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KIYA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLVENTUM CORPORATION and NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-02973 (D. Minn., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on or around March 29, 2026. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Solventum Corporation is a medical technology company headquartered in Eagan, Minnesota. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is a company that operates the public hospital and health care systems in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com SPAMAZING INC: Wu FLSA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as LI WU, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff v. SPAMAZING INC., and YINGNA LABATOS a/k/a Mina Labatos, Defendants, Case No. 715651/2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03766 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, Plaintiff presents federal questions for determination as to whether Defendants failed to pay her wages in violation of the FLSA. SPAMAZING INC. and YINGNA LABATOS a/k/a Mina Labatos provide spam e-mail protection.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ross M. Greenky, Esq. Edward G. Melvin, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP Barclay Damon Tower 125 East Jefferson Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 425-2702 E-mail: rgreenky@barclaydamon.com SPECTRUM PHARMA: Settlement in Christiansen Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christiansen, et al., v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. -- Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for purposes of this Settlement only, the Litigation is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of all Persons who purchased Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum") common stock between May 12, 2022, and Sept. 22, 2022, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Defendants and members of the Individual Defendants' immediate families; (2) the current or former officers and directors of Spectrum during the Class Period, and members of their immediate families; (3) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing; and (4) any entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is any Person who properly excludes himself, herself, itself, or themselves from the Class by submitting a valid and timely request for exclusion. -- Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lead Plaintiff is preliminarily certified as Class Representative and Lead Counsel Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP is preliminarily certified as Class Counsel. -- A Settlement Hearing shall be held before this Court on Nov. 20, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. -- Mr. Christiansen's pro se motions objecting to the preliminary settlement agreement are denied without prejudice to Mr. Christiansen raising his objections in the manner set forth in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 193, 196, and 197. -- The parties' joint request for a teleconference is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 198. Spectrum operates as a biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fOJmXA at no extra charge.[CC] STANLEY BLACK: Faces Rothschild Class Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- OR ROTHSCHILD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01013 (D. Conn., June 26, 2026) is a class action arises from SBD's retention of profits generated by price increases imposed on DEWALT-branded products in response to unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In November 2024, SBD issued a letter which provided notice to consumers and warned that anticipated tariff actions of the incoming administration would require price increases on certain impacted products, and require SBD to update its pricing policies. Beginning in 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of IEEPA. Those tariffs increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. Importers and manufacturers relying on global supply chains responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of those tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. In response to the tariffs, SBD raised prices on DEWALT-branded products and related Tools & Outdoor products. SBD made numerous public statements that tied tariffs to pricing decisions. SBD confirmed in public investor materials that it implemented tariff-driven price increases, including a "high-single digit U.S. Tools & Outdoor price increase" tied to tariff impacts, and that further price action was required as a result of tariffs, the suit says. The Supreme Court of the United States held that IEEPA did not authorize the challenged tariff regime. 9. As a consequence of that decision, importers that paid IEEPA tariffs became entitled to seek refunds, reimbursements, reliquidation, abatements, exclusions, or other recovery associated with duties previously paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Accordingly, SBD has sought, preserved, or intends to seek refunds, reimbursements, abatements, exclusions, reliquidation, or other recovery associated with the same IEEPA tariffs that SBD publicly used to justify increased prices imposed on purchasers of DEWALT-branded products. SBD collected the economic burden of the tariffs from consumers through increased prices on DEWALT-branded products while retaining, or positioning itself to recover, the same tariff payments from the federal government. Unless restrained by this Court, SBD stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers through tariff-inflated prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds or other tariff-related recoveries, including interest or other payment enhancements available by law, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of consumers who purchased DEWALT branded products during the Class Period and who paid prices reflecting SBD's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff-related overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. SBD owns and operates the DEWALT brand, one of its flagship professional tool brands and a central component of SBD's Tools & Outdoor segment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq . MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole A. Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com STRIPING TECHNOLOGY: Osorio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD OSORIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STRIPING TECHNOLOGY, LLC FKA STRIPING TECHNOLOGY, LP, Case No. 6:26-cv-00302-JDK (E.D. Tex., June 25, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Striping Technology knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members for the overtime premium required by law for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, as a result of a misclassification. To provide its services, the Defendant employs (and continues to employ) numerous non-exempt employees -- including Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members -- as crew foremen. Plaintiff Osorio has been employed by Striping Technology as a crew foreman since on or about October 20, 2014. During his employment, Plaintiff Osorio was classified by Striping Technology as an exempt salaried employee and was not paid the proper amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant operates a road striping and pavement marking business, providing lane marking, traffic control, and related services on roadways and parking facilities throughout Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Munoz Loses Bid to Remand Case ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodolfo William Munoz v. Subcontracting Concepts CT LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07887-SVW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wilson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand. This case will proceed under the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered to file a motion for class certification within 60 days of this Order. The Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. By the Court's conservative estimation, the complaint plausibly brings into controversy at least $81,799.905 on the first four causes of action alone— surpassing the $75,000 required to establish diversity jurisdiction. This is a wage and hour dispute, a putative class action, consisting of several state-law claims, removed from Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on Aug. 21, 2026, under diversity jurisdiction. The Plaintiff had worked continuously for the Defendant from Dec. 26, 2019, until Feb. 1, 2025. Subcontracting specializes in driver onboarding and compliance management, payment processing for independent contractors, and insurance verification. A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4h3Ak at no extra charge.[CC] SYSCO CORP: Matthews Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------- JANITTA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04854 (S.D. Tex., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or about May 6, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Sysco Corporation is a distributor of food products, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 Email: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com TAN OAK: Nixon Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA NIXON and MYKALA MCGUIRE-BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAN OAK FINANCIAL d/b/a TAN OAK LENDING, COHO FINANCIAL d/b/a PATH LENDING, DONALD DUNCAN, individually and in his official capacity as Chairperson of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria, NICK EISMAN, EPIC LOAN SYSTEMS, INC., DENNIS GLEN MILKS, DAVID SANCHEZ, JARED SULLIVAN, VELA SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL INC., and UNKNOWN ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01771 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a rent-a-tribe scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. According to the complaint, the Defendants charged annual loan interest rates exceeding 720 percent, which is more than 24 times the rate permitted by the Consumer Finance Act and more than 29 times Florida's criminal usury rate. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business practices, the Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, anxiety, and frustration. Coho Financial, doing business as Path Lending, is a company that operates a lending business. Tan Oak Financial, doing business as Tan Oak Lending, is a sister brand of Coho Financial d/b/a Path Lending, located in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon D. Morgan, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, PA 3505 E. Frontage Rd., Suite 145 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 567-3434 Facsimile: (855) 500-0705 Email: BMorgan@SeraphLegal.com TBonan@SeraphLegal.com TARGET CORP: Finek Sues Over Baby Wipes' Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------ MORGAN FINEK and DATREONI O'NEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06966 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2026) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Target Corporation with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Up&Up branded Fragrance Free and Fresh Cucumber Scented baby wipes products throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with Burkholderia cepacia complex and Burkholderia gladioli. The Defendant's own recall and other testing confirmed and demonstrated the presence of these dangerous bacteria in Plaintiffs' products. Accordingly, the Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, among other things, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and Illinois' Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and resulted in unjust enrichment to Defendant. The Defendant also breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the products, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Target Corporation owns and operates retail stores. The company also manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells various baby wipes products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 979 Green Bay Road Telephone: (919) 926-7948 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 E-mail: lcardona@brysconpllc.com TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Full Self-Driving" Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Lambert, writing for Tesla Inc., reports that a new proposed class action accuses Tesla of selling "Full Self-Driving" on millions of vehicles that are physically incapable of delivering it -- and to make its case, the 51-page complaint repeatedly cites Electrek's own reporting. The suit, Waller v. Tesla (No. 4:26-cv-05350-KAW), was filed June 4 in the Northern District of California and covers cars built with Tesla's Hardware 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 computers -- effectively every Tesla sold with the FSD option from 2017 through early 2023. What the lawsuit claims The complaint, brought by Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, alleges that Tesla and CEO Elon Musk have "deceptively and misleadingly" marketed vehicles with HW1 through HW3 as having all the hardware needed for fully autonomous driving -- including the "coast-to-coast" trips Musk promised back in 2016. In reality, the suit says, those cars are "incapable of safely and reliably traveling without human intervention," and Tesla's system has "never" advanced beyond SAE Level 2 -- driver assistance that requires constant human supervision -- despite years of claims that the cars were one software update away from Level 4 or 5 autonomy. The named plaintiff is David Waller, a Frankfort, Kentucky resident who bought a 2020 Model S on June 29, 2020 -- six years ago to the day -- for $81,790, plus $7,000 for the "Full Self-Driving Capability" add-on. He opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement weeks later, on July 6, 2020. Tesla's FSD package has sold for as much as $15,000. The complaint lays out five counts -- breach of express warranty, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and unjust enrichment -- and demands a jury trial, seeking damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, restitution, and disgorgement. The full 51-page complaint is available here. The smoking gun: Tesla's own admission What makes this filing different from earlier ones is timing. It's the first major class action built on top of Tesla's own admission. As we reported in April, Tesla confirmed on its Q1 2026 earnings call that HW3 vehicles "simply do not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD," blaming the chip's memory bandwidth -- one-eighth that of Hardware 4. Musk has since pushed the consumer unsupervised FSD timeline to Q4 2026 at the earliest, and Tesla now plans to physically retrofit computers and cameras on millions of cars. The complaint frames Musk's April 22 statement -- "Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD" -- as the moment Tesla "finally admitted the truth" after nearly a decade of contrary claims. It also pins the start of the limitations period there, arguing class members had no way of knowing the hardware was inadequate until that admission. A decade of fatal crashes The complaint also catalogs the human cost. It cites the May 2016 death of Joshua Brown, killed when his Model S on Autopilot failed to recognize a tractor-trailer crossing the highway and passed under it at 74 mph. Nearly three years later, in March 2019, Jeremy Banner was killed in an "eerily similar" crash -- his Model 3 on Autopilot drove under a tractor-trailer in Florida -- which the suit argues shows Tesla never fixed the flaw it claimed to have addressed in 2016. It also points to the March 2018 death of Apple engineer Walter Huang, whose Model X on Autopilot veered into a concrete highway barrier in Mountain View, California; the December 2019 death of Jenna Monet, whose Model 3 struck a parked fire truck in Indiana with Autopilot engaged; and an August 2020 crash that killed a couple in Saratoga, California after their Tesla veered off a highway on Autopilot. The filing ties these to a long record of regulatory alarm -- NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy calling Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" branding "misleading and irresponsible," and NHTSA escalating its Autopilot probe to a full engineering analysis after at least 11 crashes into parked emergency vehicles that killed one person and injured 17. Why Electrek is in the complaint -- twice To establish that the FSD shortfall was well documented, the complaint cites this publication directly. In paragraph 103, it quotes "the editor-in-chief of Electrek," yours truly, who, after testing FSD Beta over two months, concluded its "decision-making is still the equivalent of a 14-year-old who has been learning to drive for the last week and sometimes appears to consume hard drugs." The byline in the footnote is mine. This is from an article of mine in 2022. The full quote is: The computer vision system is impressive and extremely good at detecting its environment, but the decision-making is still the equivalent of a 14-year-old who has been learning to drive for the last week and sometimes appears to consume hard drugs. But that's not the only place Electrek shows up. In the plaintiff's reliance section, the complaint lists roughly a dozen Electrek articles -- most under my byline -- that Waller reviewed before his 2020 purchase, from "Tesla prepares to increase the price of 'Full Self-Driving' again" to "Tesla to increase 'Full Self-Driving' price as Elon Musk sees value rise to >$100K." In other words, the same outlet's enthusiastic 2020 coverage of Tesla's FSD promises is offered as part of the marketing record the buyer relied on, while its skeptical 2022 review is offered as proof the technology never delivered. It's an unusual thing to see your own work cited on both sides of a federal complaint. An end-run around arbitration The suit is also carefully constructed to get around the wall that has blocked many FSD claims. It's anchored in Kentucky law, excludes California, and defines a "Nationwide Ex-California Arbitration Opt-Out Class" across 27 enumerated states -- limited to owners who, like Waller, opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement, the same clause that has let Tesla force most FSD disputes out of open court. The case is formally related to the ongoing In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation. It's not an isolated effort. We've covered the thousands of owners pursuing Tesla in Australia, and the discovery that Tesla retroactively added "Supervised" to FSD contracts owners had already signed. Tesla is now facing up to $14.5 billion in combined lawsuit exposure, and the complaint stacks the regulatory record on top: a California DMV administrative ruling in December 2025 that "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" are misleading, two DMV enforcement actions, and a U.S. Department of Justice criminal probe into Tesla's self-driving claims. Electrek's Take We've been documenting the distance between Tesla's self-driving claims and reality for the better part of a decade, so it's strange -- and a little uncomfortable -- to see that reporting cited back on both sides of a complaint. The 2020 articles were accurate reporting on what Tesla was promising; the 2022 review was an honest account of what FSD Beta actually did. The plaintiff's lawyers are using the gap between the two as their case, and that gap is real. The substance is what matters. This is one of the more complete lawsuits on Tesla's false claims regarding FSD that we have seen to date. For years, Tesla's defense was that FSD was an evolving feature and every car already had the hardware to get there. Musk's April admission detonated that argument. Once the company concedes that HW3 "does not have the capability" and starts planning physical retrofits, it becomes very hard to argue that owners who paid thousands of dollars got what they were sold. The arbitration carve-out is the part to watch. Tesla has leaned heavily on forced arbitration to keep these disputes contained, and this suit deliberately targets the buyers who opted out. If it survives a motion to dismiss, it hands every other opt-out owner a template -- with Tesla's own earnings-call words as the centerpiece. After years of moving the goalposts, the company may finally be litigating this on the plaintiffs' terms. [GN] TEXT INC: Intercepts Consumer Data Thru LiveChat, Mejia Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MEJIA, MATTHEW BORDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEXT, INC. (f/k/a LiveChat Services), Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61724 (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Security of Communications Act, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of intercepting communications between consumers and businesses through its "LiveChat" interface platform. According to the complaint, when consumers type a message into the LiveChat chat window from their personal device, Text contemporaneously intercepts and acquires the contents of the consumers' electronic communication in real time before, during, and after the message is delivered to the business on the other end of the conversation. Moreover, Text does not merely intercept these communications for passive storage, it actively exploits this data for its own commercial gain, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Text, Inc., formerly known as LiveChat Services, is a technology company, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert J. Neary, Esq. Michael R. Lorigas, Esq. Cameron A. Moody, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 Email: rn@kttlaw.com mlorigas@kttlaw.com cmoody@kttlaw.com - and - Veronika Balbuzanova, Esq. Abdul-Sumi Dalal, Esq. JOHNSON DALAL 111 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 105 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (561) 954-5455 Facsimile: (954) 507-4502 Email: VB@JohnsonDalal.com AD@JohnsonDalal.com THRYV INC: Hudson PTFA Suit Removed to D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled HUNTER HUDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRYV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026CV31776, was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 22, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02801 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PTFA). Headquartered in Grapevine, TX, Thryv, Inc. provides marketing and website services as well as software as a service that allows small and medium-sized companies to market and run their businesses. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dwight M. Francis, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 391-7400 Facsimile: (469) 391-7401 E-mail: dfrancis@sheppard.com TRAJECTOR INC: Quijada Suit Transferred to N.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned GILBERT QUIJADA, JR., JEFFREY PHILLIPS, and KIMBERLY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRAJECTOR, INC., and TRAJECTOR MEDICAL, LLC, formerly known as VET COMP AND PEN MEDICAL CONSULTING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03792(C.D. Cal., April 9, 2026) was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00150-MW-MJF on June 23, 2026. This class action lawsuit arises from the unlawful and deceptive practices of Defendants who for years have preyed, and continue to prey, upon disabled Veterans by charging them, and, as applicable, their spouses, exorbitant and unlawful fees for assistance with the preparation, presentation, and/or prosecution of disability claims and appeals through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), in direct violation of federal law. Moreover, Defendants engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices and predatory collection practices in their unlawful scheme to induce disabled Veterans to retain their services, only to systematically take advantage of them throughout the VA disability claims process by intentionally ignoring federal regulations and laws which are designed to protect Veterans from overcharging "claim sharks," the complaint relates. To aid in their unlawful enterprise, Defendants employ an automated calling system known as "CallBot" that repeatedly calls VA hotlines4 using Veterans' personal information such as names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth, to access and monitor Veterans' private, confidential disability benefits compensation information without adequate consent or disclosure. Defendants use this unlawfully obtained information to determine when a Veteran's disability benefits claim has been approved or their awarded compensation for benefits has been increased. Once CallBot detects an initial award or an increase in a Veteran's disability compensation, Defendants then send a bill to the Veteran based on the newly approved award, often demanding fees equal to at least five times the Veteran's monthly disability payment or, for an increased award, at least five times the increased monthly disability payment. Defendants further launch collection efforts to Veterans characterized by frequent and persistent phone calls, including multiple calls per day, and threats about consequences for nonpayment. The charges are demanded by Defendants regardless of whether Defendants' actual services materially contributed to the favorable VA decision(s), relays the complaint. The Plaintiffs suffered from abusive, illegal, and aggressive collection practices, asserts the complaint. These abusive tactics are particularly harmful because they target disabled Veterans, many of whom suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression, or other service-connected conditions that make them especially vulnerable to harassment and financial pressure. The Plaintiffs, hence, seek a declaratory judgment and monetary damages on behalf of the proposed Classes who have been wrongly charged by the Defendants, which acted unlawfully in providing services assisting and preparing Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits claims, which by law require proper accreditation. Staff Sergeant GILBERT QUIJADA, JR. is an adult resident citizen of Los Angeles, California, and a disabled Veteran who honorably served in the United States Armed Services, specifically, in the United States Airforce. Chief Petty Officer JEFFREY PHILLIPS is an adult resident citizen of Sacramento, California and disabled Veteran who honorably served in the United States Armed Services, specifically, in the United States Navy. Plaintiff KIMBERLY PHILLIPS is the spouse of Plaintiff Chief Petty Officer Phillips and eligible to receive payment as part of Chief Petty Officer Phillips' VA disability payment. Trajector Inc. and Trajector Medical, LLC, and its predecessor Vet Comp and Pen Medical Consulting, LLC, are Florida-based corporations whose business model consists of marketing "medical evidence" and "consulting" services to Veterans seeking VA disability benefits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31355 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 210 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Jennifer Caldwell Byrd, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. S. Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: jbyrd@awkolaw.com E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com E-mail: mliu@awkolaw.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com TRIVEST PARTNERS: 6th Cir. Flips Denial of Motion to Dismiss Hall ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AARON HALL; KATHERINE GLOD; JEFFREY BINDER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRIVEST PARTNERS, L.P., TGIF POWER HOME INVESTOR, L.L.C., TRIVEST INVESTMENT ADVISORS, L.L.C., TRIVEST PARTNERS, INC., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS, INC., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS, L.P., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS G.P., L.L.C., TRIVEST GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND, L.P., and TGIF POWER HOME BLOCKER, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 25-1278, 25-1538 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's September 12, 2023 order denying the Trivest defendants' motion to dismiss. In 2014, William Waller founded Power Home Solar, L.L.C., which sold residential solar-panel systems through in-home sales presentations. Company representatives allegedly promised homeowners that the systems would reduce electricity bills by up to 90% and that government incentives would often cover the cost. Power Home was registered to do business in Michigan and Florida. In 2018, Trivest Partners, through its subsidiary Trivest Power Home Investor, acquired a 25% stake in Power Home Solar and, together with founder William Waller, helped prepare and distribute advertising promising significant savings on electricity bills and cash incentives. After the company filed for bankruptcy in 2022, three Michigan customers (Aaron Hall, Katherine Glod, and Jeffrey Binder) who had each paid more than $30,000 for solar-panel systems filed a putative class action against Waller and the Trivest entities. They alleged the systems failed to deliver the promised savings and claimed the defendants engaged in mail and wire fraud, violating the civil RICO Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The Trivest defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that Michigan lacked jurisdiction over them and that the civil RICO Act's nationwide service provision did not apply because all Defendants could be sued in Florida. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the "ends of justice" favored keeping the case in Michigan. The Sixth Circuit later granted the Trivest defendants permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. While the appeal was pending, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add seven more Trivest entities, all Florida citizens with no contacts with Michigan. The district court held that it also had personal jurisdiction over those additional defendants. The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction over the Florida-based Trivest entities under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(b). It concluded that the district court's finding that Michigan was as convenient a forum as Florida did not satisfy the statute's "ends of justice" requirement. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's jurisdictional ruling. The Sixth Circuit explained that although venue in Michigan was proper as to William Waller, the nine Trivest entities had no contacts with the state and could not otherwise be sued there. It held that neither the Plaintiffs nor the district court identified any reason why the "ends of justice" required litigating the case in Michigan under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(b). The Sixth Circuit further concluded that considerations of convenience alone cannot justify exercising personal jurisdiction over defendants lacking minimum contacts with the forum. Accordingly, it held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Trivest defendants. For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying the Trivest defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded the case for further proceedings. Because the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Trivest defendants, it also lacked authority to rule on their motions to compel arbitration. The Sixth Circuit therefore vacated the order denying those motions. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/KLOGTRYYn. ARGUED: Brian D. Schmalzbach -- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com. -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Nicholas A. Coulson -- nick@coulsonpc.com -- COULSON P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Brian D. Schmalzbach, R. Trent Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- Frank Talbott -- ftalbott@ mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Nicholas A. Coulson, COULSON P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. TWIN HILL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Zurbriggen ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOR ZURBRIGGEN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-1963 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. In 2016, American Airlines introduced new uniforms for flight attendants, pilots, and other employees. Soon after the rollout, employees reported hundreds of complaints, ranging from sizing issues to health problems, including itching, eye and throat irritation, allergic reactions, rashes, dermatitis, swelling, and respiratory symptoms. In response, American suspended the rollout, allowed employees to wear previous or substitute uniforms, and later introduced uniforms from another manufacturer. Although some employees continued to report "proximity reactions" to the Twin Hill uniforms, American fully replaced them with Lands' End uniforms by 2020. Before and after introducing the Twin Hill uniforms, American Airlines conducted wear tests and chemical analyses to assess their safety. After one pre-release wear test produced complaints of irritation, the company hired Intertek, which detected chemicals that could theoretically trigger allergic reactions but concluded the levels were too low to do so and may have resulted from external contamination. A second test of unworn uniforms reached similar findings. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health likewise found no pattern of chemical or metal contamination that could explain the reported symptoms and concluded that proximity reactions were highly unlikely. Other independent testing reached similar conclusions. In August 2017, 74 named plaintiffs sued Twin Hill, American Airlines, and other defendants under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), asserting state-law tort claims and initially seeking certification of two employee classes. After multiple motions to dismiss and discovery, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint asserting strict and negligent products liability claims against Twin Hill and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against both Twin Hill and American. The Plaintiffs also abandoned their class allegations, stating they would no longer seek class certification and instead proceed through bellwether trials. In September 2024, Twin Hill and American moved for summary judgment as to the first group of bellwether plaintiffs and sought to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' two key experts, Dr. Arch Carson and Dr. Peter Hauser. Because no testing had identified chemicals in the uniforms capable of causing the alleged injuries, these experts provided the Plaintiffs' primary evidence of defect, causation, and harm. In response, the Plaintiffs relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, arguing that circumstantial evidence, rather than proof of a specific defect or cause, supported their claims and shifted the burden of proof to the defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants after excluding the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses as unreliable. It concluded that expert testimony was necessary to establish that the uniforms were defective and caused the Plaintiffs' injuries, and without admissible expert evidence, the Plaintiffs could not support any of their four liability claims. The Plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit held that the Plaintiffs failed to identify any specific defect in the Twin Hill uniforms and agreed that the district court properly excluded the testimony of Dr. Arch Carson and Dr. Peter Hauser because their opinions were based on unreliable methodologies. It also noted that even the experts acknowledged there was no identifiable chemical in the uniforms capable of causing the alleged range of reactions. Without admissible expert testimony, the Plaintiffs lacked evidence that the uniforms caused their injuries, including the claimed proximity reactions. The Seventh Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on res ipsa loquitur to establish their products liability claims. It held that neither the Illinois Tweedy doctrine nor traditional res ipsa loquitur applied because the Plaintiffs alleged different injuries, had varying underlying medical conditions, and failed to show that a product defect was the most likely explanation for their symptoms. The Court also found that Twin Hill no longer had exclusive control of the uniforms after they were manufactured, distributed, worn, and washed, precluding an inference of negligent manufacturing. Accordingly, it affirmed summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' strict and negligent products liability claims. Finding no jurisdictional defect, the Seventh Circuit adopted the district court's reasoning in full. It held that neither the Tweedy doctrine nor res ipsa loquitur relieved the Plaintiffs of their burden to present evidence supporting their products liability claims and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/68UQCtDzt TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY M. LAMB, v. TYRONE OLIVER, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02816-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Boulee entered an order approving and adopting the final report and recommendation as the judgment of the Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice for the Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process. Tyrone Oliver was appointed Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections in 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVxOgu at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Hunsinger Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HUNSINGER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06927 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Throughout 2025 and into 2026, United Airlines, Inc. allegedly sent Plaintiff multiple text messages which purported to be "flight updates" texts. Moreover, the Plaintiff continued to receive dual purpose telemarketing texts from United Airlines even after he explicitly informed United Airlines that he wanted the texts to stop and that his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting United Airlines from making telemarketing solicitations to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, United Airlines, Inc. operates as an airline company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: JKauffman@baileyglasser.com UNITED NATURAL: Cruz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Selectors ---------------------------------------------------------- JUAN PENA CRUZ, ANNTONY PENA CRUZ, BRIAN ORTIZ, and BYRON RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-05178 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay promised wage for all hours worked, and failure to provide wage notice and wage statements in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as full-time selectors at the Montgomery Facility at any time between 2024 and 2026. United Natural Foods, Inc. is a food distributor based in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Damelio, Esq. Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 26 Court Street, Suite 1612 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 Email: Anthony@KakalecLaw.com Patricia@KakalecLaw.com - and - Robert McCreanor, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, PLLC 45 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Telephone: (845) 202-1833 Email: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com UNITED PARCEL: Kelly Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- MONIQUE KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03496-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and money had and received. The case arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendant's systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendant is obligated to return to her and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a multinational shipping, receiving, and supply chain management company based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. GO BIG INJURY LAW 1 Glenlake Parkway NE, Suite 650 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 777-7777 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 121 King Street, Suite 8 Chappaqua, NY 10514 Telephone: (914) 860-10514 Email: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Arias Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FR. FABIAN ARIAS, STEPHEN KELLY, LAURA MCCALLUM, DEBBIE NATHAN, DR. ZOEY PHILLIPS, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DAVID J. VENTURELLA, in his official capacity as the senior official performing the duties of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02130-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The claims against ICE and Defendant David J. Venturella are dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. The Plaintiffs' first amendment access, speech and association, and retaliation claims survive only to the extent specified in Section II(B). The motion is otherwise granted. Any dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a second amended complaint on or before July 22, 2026, limited to curing: (1) the defendant-specific standing deficiencies concerning ICE and Venturella identified in Section II(A)(2); and (2) the pleading deficiencies concerning claims arising from unidentified exterior spaces identified in Section II(B)(3). The Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted in part and denied in part for the reasons stated in Section II(C). The precise terms and scope of the preliminary injunction are reserved for a separate order. The Plaintiffs must submit their proposed injunction and supporting memorandum by July 2, 2026. The Defendants can submit any objections and a complete alternative proposed injunction by July 9, 2026. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without prejudice on the present record. The Plaintiffs may renew the motion on a developed evidentiary record addressing the deficiencies identified in Section II(D). Any renewed motion must include plaintiffs' proposed class definition – or proposed definitions for any subclasses – and must establish each applicable requirement of Rules 23(a) and 23(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 33 and 43. The motion at Docket Number 32 remains pending until the Court enters the separate preliminary-injunction order. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class consisting of: "All persons engaging in protected activity within immigration court facilities and functionally integrated common areas and exterior spaces subject to the Defendants' enforcement practices in New York City." The Defendants include U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General; GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; and EDWARD FORST, in his official capacity as Administrator of General Services. US Immigration conducts criminal investigations, enforces immigration laws, preserves national security, and protects public safety. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=joZIoK at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Dismissal of Meyer ERISA Class Action Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN PHILIP MEYER Esquire, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; BILLINGS CLINIC; REGIONAL CARE HOSPITAL PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as RCCH Healthcare, Defendants-Appellees, and BILLINGS CLINIC REGIONAL CARE, Defendant, Case No. 25-3070 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Meyer's putative class action complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In December 2015, Meyer was seriously injured in a skiing accident at Big Sky Resort in Montana and received treatment at two hospitals, after which he incurred substantial out-of-network medical bills. In 2017, he sued his insurer, United, alleging violations of ERISA. United incorrectly responded that his health plan was not governed by ERISA and warned it would seek attorney's fees if he did not dismiss the case. Relying on that representation, Meyer dismissed the ERISA action and instead sued under Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act. In 2019, United reversed its position, acknowledging that Meyer's plan was in fact governed by ERISA and moved to dismiss the state-law action on that basis. The district court dismissed Meyer's state-law claims as preempted by ERISA, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In December 2021, Meyer filed a putative class action under ERISA, alleging that United breached its fiduciary duties and improperly denied benefits by failing to maintain accurate billing records, pay for in-network services, prevent out-of-network charges at in-network facilities, and correctly calculate deductibles, all in violation of the No Surprises Act. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim and held that the fiduciary-duty claim was also barred by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit explained that to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant was an ERISA fiduciary, breached a fiduciary duty, and caused the plaintiff damages. ERISA requires fiduciaries to act solely in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries and to exercise the care, skill, prudence, and diligence of a prudent fiduciary. The Ninth Circuit held that Meyer failed to state a viable ERISA claim because he did not allege facts showing that United breached any fiduciary duty owed to him. It also agreed that the No Surprises Act did not apply because the challenged conduct occurred before the Act took effect on January 1, 2022. Accordingly, it affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim and did not address the statute of limitations issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://lnk.ua/CvubE0MbW VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Suit Moved from State Ct. to D.D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE TEHAN, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated v. VANGUARD PARKING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2026-CAB-003397 (Filed May 19, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 26, 2026. The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02254 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the company has faced significant legal scrutiny and class-action lawsuits regarding its enforcement practices and fee structures. Vanguard is a technology-enabled parking management company that operates automated, gateless license-plate recognition enforcement systems. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph F. Fiorill, Esq. ARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 900 7th Street NW, Suite 700 Washington DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 854-2819 Facsimile: (202) 217-2771 E-mail: joefiorill@parkerpoe.com VENEZUELA: Must Respond to Cavara Amended Complaint by July 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cavara et al., v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the requested thirty (30)-day adjournment resulting in the following deadlines: The Republic's deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint and to oppose the class certification motion would be July 24, 2026; The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of class certification and their opposition to the Republic's motion to dismiss would be Aug. 21, 2026; and The Republic's deadline to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss would be Sept. 11, 2026. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xNoxcM at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dora Georgescu, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0186 Facsimile: (212) 237-0100 E-mail: ccardozo@velaw.com mantonelli@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VILLAGE OF FREEPORT: Paulino Sues Over Seizures of Motor Vehicle ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL PAULINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, MICHAEL SMITH, individually, JCB & SONS, INC. d/b/a NON-STOP TOWING & RECOVERY a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING a/k/a NON-STOP TOWING AND RECOVERY and JEROME BONOMO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03680 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of civil rights and conversion. The Plaintiff brings this suit to pursue recourse for the Defendants having seized and permanently deprived him of his 2019 Dodge Charger, in violation of his rights against unreasonable seizures under the 4th Amendment, and rights to Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendments. According to the complaint, the Defendants' unreasonable seizure of the subject vehicle was carried out by the Defendants under color of state law and was accomplished in accordance with their standard policies, practices, and customs under Freeport's scofflaw seizure-for-profit and kickbacks program. As a result of such unreasonable seizure and sale of his vehicle, the Plaintiff was damaged by having been permanently deprived of the use, possession, and ownership of his vehicle. The Village of Freeport is a municipal corporation, with a principal place of business in Freeport, New York. JCB & Sons, Inc., doing business as Non-Stop Towing & Recovery, also known as Non-Stop Towing, is a towing and motor vehicle storage company, with a principal place of business in Freeport, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq. CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, PC 1757 Merrick Ave., Suite 204 Merrick, NY 11566 Telephone: (516) 746-1600 Email: ajc@campanellipc.com WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Hicks Suit Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- CORKEITHA HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00255-MTT (M.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful surcharge in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Waffle House System Employee Benefit Plan that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the Plan. Waffle House, Inc. is an American restaurant chain, in Norcross, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Brent Irby, Esq. LYONS IRBY, LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 335-9102 Facsimile: (866) 618-4629 Email: brent@lyonsirby.com - and - William Greg Dobson, Esq. WILLIAM GREG DOBSON, PC 333 Northside Drive, Suite A Macon, GA 31210 Email: wgd@lddlawyers.com WESTERN REFINING: Peoples Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICHARD HONEY, JOHNATHON PEOPLES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SPEEDWAY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CU017044C, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 22, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03665-AGS-JLB to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages. Western Refining Retail owns and operates convenience stores and gas stations. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capital Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: pebsworth@seyfarth.com WHITE GLOVE: Faces Osinowo Suit Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH OSINOWO v. WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. and BARBARA LEFKOWITZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-03834 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2026) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and to all other similarly situated employees, seeking damages to redress the losses Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendants' retaliation, disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order. According to the complaint, shortly after Plaintiff commenced employment, Human Resources Manager Odette Harmer began engaging in a sustained pattern of hostile, demeaning, and inappropriate conduct toward Plaintiff. On March 11, 2025, Harmer ordered food for a company-sponsored event containing ingredients to which Plaintiff is allergic, despite having been previously informed of Plaintiff's allergy. This conduct was repeated on June 12, 2025, and twice on July 1, 2025. On approximately May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident resulting in a severe shoulder injury requiring medical treatment, ongoing physical therapy, and ultimately surgery. On September 5, 2025 and again on September 17, 2025, the Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of temporary remote work due to her limitations in mobility and ability to drive. On September 9, 2025, Harmer indicated verbally that this accommodation would not be an issue. However, Harmer later told Plaintiff that the accommodation would not be possible at all. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York. She was employed by Defendants to work as a clinical case manager. The Plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL in that she suffered from a shoulder injury resulting from a car accident on her way to work. Defendant is a home healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liane Fisher, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 WOMEN'S CENTER: ClassAction.org Probes Potential Data Breach Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Women's Center for Radiology data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Women's Center for Radiology data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Women's Center for Radiology Security Incident: What Happened? Women's Center for Radiology (WCR), operating in Orlando, Florida, has disclosed a data breach that may have involved sensitive personal and medical information. A June 26, 2026 notice posted on Women's Center for Radiology's website states that suspicious network activity was first detected on April 29 of the same year. An investigation aided by third-party specialists determined that, between April 26 and April 28, there was unauthorized access to a portion of Women's Center for Radiology's network. During that time, some files on Women's Center for Radiology's network were accessed or downloaded by an unauthorized actor. An investigation determined that, varying from person to person, names, addresses, dates of birth, contact information, diagnoses and conditions, lab results, treating and referring physicians, medical record numbers, health insurance information, and driver's licenses may have been compromised in the Women's Center for Radiology data breach. What You Can Do After the Women's Center for Radiology Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Women's Center for Radiology data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Women's Center for Radiology to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] WRIGHT OF FLORIDA: Simms Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- VANIA SIMMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WRIGHT OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01851 (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2026) contends that the employment of Plaintiff provided for a 40 hour work week, but throughout her employment the Plaintiff was required to work, and did work, a substantial number of hours in excess of 40 hours per work week, including uncompensated overtime hours as a Scheduler and uncompensated drive time hours as a Crew Lead/Flagger in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, VANIA SIMMS, was employed by Defendant beginning January 17, 2022, and was terminated on January 3, 2025. During her employment, Plaintiff held two positions: Scheduler and Flagger/Crew Lead. The Plaintiff worked orida office located at 1100 Polk City Road, Haines City, Florida. As a Scheduler, Plaintiff was regularly required to work 50 to 60 hours per week. Plaintiff was issued a company phone and was expected to answer it at any time, including nights and weekends, resulting in Plaintiff being on-call and working well in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite regularly working 50 to 60 hours per week as a Scheduler, Defendant would not compensate Plaintiff at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in the workweek. In or around August 2024, due to the unlawful pay practices, the Plaintiff stepped down from her Scheduler position and transitioned to the position of Crew Lead/Flagger, says the suit. As a Traffic Control Technician/Flagger, the Plaintiff was paid at the rate of approximately $16.78 per hour. 19. As a Crew Lead/Flagger Plaintiff was assigned a company pickup truck that contained cones, signs, flags, and other traffic control equipment necessary for Plaintiff and her crew to perform their job duties. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendant and was paid on an hourly basis. The Defendant provides a broad range of traffic control services to public agencies, contractors, and communities, including general traffic control (such as short-term lane closures, lane shifts, detours, and full road closures), traffic management plan design, and traffic equipment rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. CHRISTOPHER D. GRAY, Esq. FLORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 254-5255 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 E-mail: MBouzas@floringray.com angela@floringray.com CGray@floringray.com debbie@floringray.com WWW.FIFTYFLOWERS.COM INC: Senior Sues Over Website's Access Barrier ------------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WWW.FIFTYFLOWERS.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05063 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.fiftyflowers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. www.fiftyflowers.com, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal XSOLIS INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Mitchell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XSOLIS, INC. and MAYO CLINIC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00830 (M.D. Tenn., June 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on January 22, 2026. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Xsolis, Inc. is a healthcare artificial intelligence and technology company based in Franklin, Tennessee. Mayo Clinic is a private American academic medical center based in Rochester, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Tejada Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- IVAN TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HENRY SCHUCK, and M. GRAHAM O'BRIEN, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05696-GJL (W.D. Wash., June 25, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ZoomInfo securities between November 3, 2025 and May 11, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning ZoomInfo's growth potential for the fiscal year 2026. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth of its legacy and emerging AI-driven products, core software business and sustained improvement in net revenue retention. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of ZoomInfo's slowing growth its legacy seat-based subscription platforms and weakening customer retention in its downmarket segment. Further, the Company minimized concerns that customers were moving towards consumption-based usage models and developing internal AI-driven go-to-market solutions. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase ZoomInfo's securities at artificially inflated prices, the complaint relates. However, the truth emerged after the market closed on May 11, 2026, when ZoomInfo announced its first quarter 2026 financial results, unveiling a sharp decline in growth outlook and accordingly lowered its 2026 full year financial guidance. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to ZoomInfo's revelation. The price of ZoomInfo's common stock declined dramatically from a closing market price of $6.04 per share on May 11, 2026, ZoomInfo's stock price fell to $4.06 per share on May 12, 2026, a decline of about 33%, says the suit. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. provides market intelligence and engagement platform for sales, marketing, operations, and recruiting professionals in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. TOWNSEND LEGAL, PLLC 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 761-2480 Facsimile: (206) 455-9555 E-mail: roger@townsendlegal.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com ********* 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 ***