---

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

              Thursday, July 9, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 136

                            Headlines

ADINA DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says
AMERICAN MELON: McCurdy Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ASTRA CARE: Montgomery Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BARRATT REDROW: May Face GBP4.5-Bil. Anticompetitive Class Suit
BLADES AUDIO: Gray Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA

BON APPETIT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Montiel Suit Alleges
CALCON MUTUAL: Hull Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CARROLL'S AUTOMOTIVE: Mott Suit Seeks unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
CHALLENGE MFG: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Parry Suit Alleges
CHINA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Shipping Container Price-fixing

CITADEL SECURITIES: Faces Reynolds Class Suit Over Illegal Trading
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Nilsen Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
CREDIT SUISSE: Rathi Sues Over Retirement Plan Fund Mismanagement
DONALD TRUMP: Miot Bid to Certify Class Stayed
FANTASIA TRADING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: O'Donovan Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
FUTU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
HUB GROUP: Faces Lawler Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
LASTPASS US: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gold Alleges
LAWTON, OK: Wilson Sues Over Unfair Disability Accommodations

LENA CARBON: GUTIERREZ Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 15
META PLATFORMS: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 29
MIAMI GARDENS, FL: Hispanic Officers' Suit Allege Discrimination
MISSOURI: Burnett Class Suit Seeks Student Loan Overpayment Refund

NEENAH INC: Koth Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NORTHWEST BANK: Breaches of Fiduciary Duties, O'Malia Suit Alleges
NOVO NORDISK: Fails to Safeguarded Private Info, Kilburg Alleges
NUTRIEN AG: Faces JS Farms Suit Over Fertilzer Inflated Prices
NYC HEALTH: Faces Morris Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court OKs Class Cert. in Jail Plumbing Suit
PINE REST: Ellison Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
STIIIZY INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for 2.95-Mil.
TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Drain Alleges
TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lindsay Says

TRAFFIC TECH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frainey Alleges
VINCERO INC: Rosenberg Sues Over Illegal Telephone Solicitation Ads
WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Chia Seed Product False Labels
WESTERN REFINING: Black Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code

                            *********

ADINA DESIGN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ADINA DESIGN, INC. d/b/a ADINA REYTER, Case No.
1:26-cv-05486 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2026) arises from the Defendant's
failure to design, maintain, and operate its website,
www.adinareyter.com in a manner accessible to blind and visually
impaired individuals in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Website functions as highly interactive retail e commerce
platform in a manner that is fully accessible to blind and visually
impaired individuals. On multiple occasions in January, February
and March 2026, Plaintiff Edwin Williams attempted on three
separate occasions o access Defendant's retail e commerce Website,
www.adinareyter.com, using the NVDA screen reader on his home
computer in New York County. The Plaintiff visited the Website for
the specific purpose of browsing and purchasing fine jewelry as an
engagement gift for his partner.

The Plaintiff is a proficient user of screen-reading software,
including Job Access With Speech and/or NonVisual Desktop Access,
which she relies on daily to navigate digital environments
independently.

ADINA DESIGN, INC., d/b/a ADINA REYTER, is a jewelry design and
manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC
          825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          E-mail; rschonfeld@employeejustice.com

AMERICAN MELON: McCurdy Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIE D. McCURDY, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. AMERICAN MELON SALES, LLC, Case No.
6:26-cv-00308-JDK (E.D. Tex., June 29, 2026) seeks to recover
overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Potential Class Members were employed as
salaried Logistics Coordinator/Dispatcher workers who worked for
American Melon Sales within the last three years, but did not
qualify for any exemption for payment of overtime pay under the
FLSA.

Plaintiff McCurdy and the Potential Class Members were paid on a
salary basis. Specifically, American Melon Sales paid the Plaintiff
and the Potential Class Members a weekly salary without the proper
overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.

Specifically, Plaintiff McCurdy resided and performed a substantial
portion of her work duties, including tracking shipments,
communicating with brokers, and responding to work related
communications, from her home in Henderson County, Texas.

American Melon Sales specializes in growing and shipping
high-quality produce, including melons, berries, pumpkins, peaches,
grapes, and plums.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com

ASTRA CARE: Montgomery Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDIE MONTGOMERY, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. ASTRA CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00064-JPJ-PMS (W.D.
Va., June 29, 2026) seeks to recover overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and putative Plaintiffs are current and former Astra
Care Drivers who worked in Virginia within the three years
preceding the filing of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are employees of Astra
Care and have been denied or underpaid regular and overtime wages,
the suit says.

The Defendant is a provider of non-emergency medical transportation
throughout western and central Virginia, including but not limited
to in Martinsville, Pulaski, Charlottesville, Galax, Marion,
Richmond, Wytheville, and Christiansburg, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          HADDOX LAW
          1203 Texas Street
          Salem, VA 24153
          Telephone: (540) 765-4284
          E-mail: brittany@haddox.law

               - and -

          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC  
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848  
          E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com

BARRATT REDROW: May Face GBP4.5-Bil. Anticompetitive Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Williams, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that legal
action against seven of Britain's biggest housebuilders is set to
be launched on behalf of homebuyers in a claim that could seek to
secure up to GBP4.5 billion in compensation.

Mark McLaren -- a former parliamentary and legal affairs manager at
consumer group Which? -- is planning to bring a class action claim
against Barratt Redrow, Bellway, The Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes,
Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Vistry Group and its Countryside
Partnerships division over allegations that consumers had to pay
higher prices for new-build properties due to alleged
anti-competitive behaviour by the firms.

It is being launched on behalf of more than 700,000 people who
bought new build homes in Great Britain between October 2015 and
June 24 this year.

The action -- which is now going to the Competition Appeal Tribunal
in order to get the go ahead -- follows an investigation by the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) into whether the
housebuilders shared commercially sensitive information for two
years until February 2024.

The CMA dropped further action in return for an agreement by the
firms to pay GBP100 million into affordable housing programmes and
make binding commitments not to share information.

The class action case being led by Mr McLaren alleges that property
buyers paid more for new build homes than they should have because
of reduced competition between the major builders, and claims that
it believes this was affecting buyers as far back as October 2015.

Mr McLaren, who is being represented by competition law firms
Geradin Partners and Hausfeld as co-counsel, believes each affected
homeowner could be due compensation of between GBP3,100 and
GBP6,200 each -- totalling between GBP2.2 billion and GBP4.5
billion.

Mr McLaren said: "Buying a home is one of the biggest financial
commitments most of us will make.

"If, as seems to be the case, housebuilders shared sensitive
pricing and sales information with one another instead of competing
properly, homeowners across Great Britain may well have been left
out of pocket as a result.

"This claim is about standing up for those buyers and ensuring that
compensation is delivered to those who deserve it."

Scott Campbell, a partner at Hausfeld, said: "For most homeowners,
bringing an individual claim simply isn't realistic, as the cost
and complexity put it out of reach.

"That's why this collective action is so important.

"It provides a practical route for hundreds of thousands of
consumers to seek compensation where they may otherwise have had no
way of doing so."

The housebuilders have been approached for comment.

The CMA said last year it launched the probe amid concerns the
firms were sharing commercially sensitive information, which could
have impacted the development of sites and prices of new homes.

The watchdog there were signs they had exchanged details about
sales including pricing, number of property viewings and incentives
offered to buyers such as upgraded kitchens or stamp duty
contributions.

But the agreement secured with the builders meant the regulator did
not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law.
[GN]

BLADES AUDIO: Gray Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER GRAY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. BLADES AUDIO VIDEO 1, Case No.
1:26-cv-01375-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 29, 2026) is a collective
action against Blades pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for
overtime pay violations.

Plaintiff Gray brings this action for himself and all current
and/or former employees of Blades AV who were misclassified as
exempt, salary-paid employees, but who worked for Blades AV in
non-exempt installation technician positions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Gray and his fellow installation technicians
were not properly paid any overtime compensation at all for the
many hours each worked in excess of 40 each week. The Plaintiff was
not also paid his accrued, unused vacation wages by his next
regularly scheduled pay date after his January 7, 2026 termination,
says the suit.

Blades AVS provides turnkey audio video and security solutions
which include system design, installation, training and ongoing
service and support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
          HASSLER KONDRAS LLP  
          100 Cherry Street
          P.O. Box 1527
          Terre Haute, IN 47808
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kondras@hktlawfirmllp.com

               - and –

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market Street, Suite 168  
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com

BON APPETIT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Montiel Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM MONTIEL, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO., California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20529 (Cal
Super., June 29, 2026) is a Private Attorney General Action
complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated who worked for
Defendants in their California locations as non exempt, hourly
employees for:

    (i) failure to provide employment records;

   (ii) failure to pay overtime and double time;

  (iii) failure to provide rest and meal periods;

   (iv) failure to pay minimum wage;

    (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide
        itemized wage statements; and

   (vi) failure to pay reporting time wages.

The aggrieved employees worked for all of the Defendants or for any
of the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees.

Bon Appetit is a Palo Alto, California-based on-site restaurant
company, that provides cafe and catering services to corporations,
colleges, and universities. The company is a subsidiary of the
British multinational corporation Compass Group since 2002, and
operates over 1,000 cafes in 33 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raffi Tapanian, Esq.
          TAPANIAN LAW, APC
          611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 433-4977
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2654
          E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com

CALCON MUTUAL: Hull Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Hull, an Arizona Resident and Andrew Klein, an Arizona
Resident v. Calcon Mutual Mortgage, LLC d/b/a OneTrust Home Loans a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-04538-CDB (D.
Ariz., June 29, 2026) is a class action seeking equitable relief,
overtime wages, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated Collective Members who were not
compensated for their correct overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and
the Collective Members' commissions and/or bonuses were not
factored into the calculation of their regular rate of pay. The
Plaintiffs and the Collective Members worked over 40 hours, off the
clock, without overtime compensation, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the Collective Members are current and former
dialers, pre Collective Members are approval managers, director,
loan processors, loan officer assistants, Loan Consultants, Loan
Production Assistants, Branch Pre-Approval Managers, CRM managers,
loan officers, inside sales representatives or similarly titled
and/or have similar job duties and responsibilities, employed by
Defendant.

The Defendant is a company which conducts mortgage-related
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Weiler, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          WEILER LAW PLLC
          www.weilerlaw.com
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ  85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: info@weilerlaw.com
                  jweiler@weilerlaw.com
                  jbarrat@weilerlaw.com

CARROLL'S AUTOMOTIVE: Mott Suit Seeks unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAYTON B. MOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARROLL'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER LLC D/B/A CARROLL'S
WRECKER SERVICE AND JUSTIN BRIGGS, Case No. 6:26-cv-00307 (E.D.
Tex., June 29, 2026) seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and
litigation expenses and costs, including expert witness fees and
expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Accordingly, thee Plaintiff was compensated solely by a commission
equal to twenty-five percent of the job tickets he generated, with
no additional payment for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, despite routinely working forty 45 or more hours each and
every workweek.

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent all other similarly situated
past and present tow truck driver employees of Carroll's Wrecker
Service who were likewise compensated solely by commission and who
have not been paid overtime, and to have this action certified as a
collective action.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually in his own behalf
and, pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA, as a representative of
a class of individuals who are similarly situated and who have
suffered the same or similar damages.

The Defendant is doing business as Carroll's Wrecker Service, a
towing and recovery business operating at 4526 W Oak Street,
Palestine, Anderson County, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          bhommel@hommelfirm.com

CHALLENGE MFG: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Parry Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEDNY PARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHALLENGE MFG. COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2:26-cv-12178-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 29, 2026) is a class action
to hold the Defendant responsible for disclosing the Plaintiff's
and thousands of similarly situated individuals' sensitive,
confidential personally identifiable information to cybercriminals
in a foreseeable, preventable data breach.

On May 8, 2026, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network
servers without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including,
upon information and belief, full names, and Social Security
numbers (Private Information), causing widespread injuries to
Plaintiff and Class. The Defendant could not perform its operations
or provide its revenue generating services, without collecting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and retains it
for many years, at least, even after the employee relationship has
ended.

This duty arises under contract, statutory and common law, industry
standards, representations made to Plaintiff and Class Members, and
because it is foreseeable that the exposure of Private Information
to unauthorized persons -- and especially hackers with nefarious
intentions -- will harm the affected individuals, including but not
limited to by the invasion of their personal matters, the suit
contends.

The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it
collected and maintained, including by failing to implement
industry standards for data security to protect against, detect,
and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to
access and steal Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
from Defendant's care, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant who, as a condition of receiving employment from
Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their
sensitive, non-public Private Information.

The Defendant is an automobile manufacturer with multiple locations
across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

CHINA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Shipping Container Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANYL WITTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTAINERS
(GROUP) CO., LTD.; CIMC USA, INC.; SHANGHAI UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS
EQUIPMENT CO., LTD. a/k/a "Dong Fang International Containers";
CXIC GROUP CONTAINERS CO. LTD.; SINGAMAS CONTAINER HOLDINGS LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-06422 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendants and their co-conspirators for
injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, seeking
treble damages under the antitrust laws, unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws of
several states, and demands a trial by jury.

The lawsuit was brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself,
individually and on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased Standard Dry Shipping Containers indirectly
from the Defendants. This arises from a global conspiracy among
Defendants and their co-conspirators to enter into agreements
involving Standard Dry Shipping Containers to restrict supplies,
fix prices, allocate market shares, stifle competition, and thereby
charge the purchaser supra-competitive prices, asserts the
complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' secretive
anticompetitive agreements began no later than November 14, 2019,
and lasted until at least January 2024. During the COVID-19
pandemic, at the very moment when global commerce and household
stability depended on a reliable supply of Standard Dry Shipping
Containers, the Defendants agreed not to compete. Unabashedly, they
used their collective control over the market to restrict output,
create an artificial supply shortage, raise prices to
supra-competitive levels, and profit from the illegal disruption,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants must be held accountable for
the overcharges and other harm caused by their global price-fixing
and output-restriction conspiracy.

China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. is a
publicly traded company, organized and existing under the laws of
the People's Republic of China. During the Class Period, CIMC was
engaged in the business of manufacturing Standard dry shipping
containers and selling them to customers in the United States and
around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3299
          E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.  
          Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
          Emily B. Egart, Esq.
          Adam J. Kolb, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
                  eegart@gustafsongluek.com
                  akolb@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          Marko Radisavljevic, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          1420 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 834-2044
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com
                  mradisavljevic@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Mario N. Alioto, Esq.
          Lauren C. Capurro, Esq.
          TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT LLP
          2001 Union Street, Suite 482
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 563-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 346-0679
          E-mail: malioto@tatp.com
                  laurenrussell@tatp.com

CITADEL SECURITIES: Faces Reynolds Class Suit Over Illegal Trading
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARON REYNOLDS, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITADEL SECURITIES LLC and VIRTU AMERICAS LLC, Case No.
1:26-cv-24485- (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2026) arises from the Defendant
broker-dealers' manipulative and illegal trading in the securities
of Genius, an educational technology company that delivers
AI-powered training and tools to six million students in more than
100 different countries.

For years, the Defendants repeatedly, and on a massive scale,
placed and executed manipulative trades that were designed to, and
did, artificially deflate the price of Genius stock and expand its
bid-ask spread, thereby causing investors to sell their shares at
artificially depressed prices while also inflating of their
transaction costs. This fraudulent scheme, known as "spoofing,"
enriched Defendants while devastating Plaintiff and other Genius
investors, the suit contends.

By manipulating the market price in this manner, the spoofer seeks
to benefit his own positions in the security. For instance, the
spoofer may place a large quantity of sell-side Baiting Orders that
move the market price down; that downward price movement may
benefit the spoofer's pre-existing short positions, or the spoofer
may place a number of new buy orders so that he can acquire the
stock at the prices artificially depressed by his manipulative
conduct.

Significantly, prior to and during the Class Period, regulators had
specifically warned Defendants that the trading platforms they had
developed and operated could be -- and in fact had been -- used to
facilitate unlawful trading activity such as spoofing, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff Reynolds purchased and sold Genius securities during
the Class Period and was damaged by Defendants' manipulative
conduct in violation of federal securities law

Citadel engages in market making in U.S. equities and other
securities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Abrams, Esq.
          KASOWITZ LLP
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2550
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 377-1666
          Facsimile: (305) 377-1664
          E-mail: jabrams@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Abe Alexander, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 722-8501
          E-mail: aalexander@gelaw.com

               - and -

          James W. Christian, Esq.
          CHRISTIAN ATTAR
          1177 W. Loop South, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 659-7617
          Facsimile: (713) 659-4641
          E-mail: jchristian@christianattarlaw.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Nilsen Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE DUPUIS NILSEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:26-cv-00874 (M.D. Tenn., June 29, 2026) challenges the
Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge"
under the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan
in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations.

The  suit contends that is both unfair and unlawful for entities
like CHS to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance
surcharges on employees who use tobacco products without making
available a reasonable alternative standard to avoid those
surcharges.

ERISA permits health-contingent wellness programs that promote
health if, and only if, such programs strictly comply with the
criteria governing these programs, including:

(i) offering a meaningful and accessible reasonable alternative
standard to any individual being charged extra based on a health
factor;

(ii) clearly disclosing the availability of that alternative
standard in "all plan materials" describing the surcharge; and

(iii) making available the "full reward" to all participants who
satisfy the reasonable alternative standard.

Instead, the Defendant imposes a discriminatory tobacco surcharge
without making available, or notifying participants of, a
reasonable alternative standard that provides all similarly
situated individuals who satisfy it with the full reward that
non-smokers receive, violating federal regulations and depriving
employees of benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA, the
suit says.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is a Fortune 500 company based in
Franklin, Tennessee. It was the largest provider of general
hospital healthcare services in the United States in terms of
number of acute care facilities. In 2014, CHS had around 200
hospitals, but the number had declined to around 85 in 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Payne, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP  
          8 Campus Drive, Suite 105 PMB No. 161
          Parsippany, NJ 07054  
          Telephone: (862) 350-0042
          E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com
                  ofaircloth@sirillp.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Rathi Sues Over Retirement Plan Fund Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAILASH RATHI and CASEY TART, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Employees Savings
and Retirement Plan of Credit Suisse, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES USA LLC, THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF CREDIT
SUISSE, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00762-UNA (D.
Del., June 27, 2026) is a civil enforcement action brought pursuant
to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the
Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint relates that during the six years predating the
filing of this Complaint, Defendants maintained several actively
managed investment options that consistently underperformed
appropriate benchmarks and comparable peer funds over multiple
trailing three-year periods, including: Vanguard PRIMECAP Adm Fund
("PRIMECAP"); T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund I Class ("New
Horizons"); and T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund ("Small-Cap
Value"). These three funds (the "Challenged Funds") collectively
held hundreds of millions of dollars in Plan assets while
persistently lagging relative to their benchmarks and similarly
situated peer funds over prolonged periods, asserts the complaint.
A prudent fiduciary would have removed or replaced these funds
after repeated and sustained underperformance became evident
through ordinary fiduciary monitoring processes. But Defendants
failed to do so. The Defendants breached their duties by
imprudently retaining persistently underperforming investment
options in the Plan for years despite objectively identifiable
indications of persistent underperformance and the availability of
materially superior alternatives, it adds.

As a result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and imprudent
retention of the Challenged Funds, Plaintiffs and the Plan suffered
losses relative to materially better-performing available
alternatives, says the suit.

Plaintiff Kailash Rathi was a participant in the Plan within the
meaning of ERISA from 2005 until 2025, when he withdrew his funds
from the Plan through a rollover of substantially all Plan assets
into an individual retirement account. During the Class Period, and
up until 2025, Mr. Rathi invested in PRIMECAP and New Horizons.

Plaintiff Casey Tart was a participant in the Plan within the
meaning of ERISA from 2010 until 2024, when he withdrew his funds
from the Plan through a rollover of substantially all Plan assets
into an individual retirement account. During the Class Period, and
up until 2024, Mr. Tart invested in PRIMECAP, New Horizons, and
Small-Cap Value.

Each Defendant was a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning of
ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     William J. Rhodunda, Jr., Esq.
     RHODUNDA, WILLIAMS AND KONDRASCHOW, LLC
     1521 Concord Pike, Suite 205
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Telephone: (302) 576-2000
     E-mail: Bill@rawlaw.com

          - and -

     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
     Trevor Flynn, Esq.
     FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
     2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Telephone: (619) 215-1741
     E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
             mmonroe@fmfpc.com
             tflynn@fmfpc.com

DONALD TRUMP: Miot Bid to Certify Class Stayed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLY MIOT, et al., v.
TRUMP et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02471 (D.D.C., Filed July 30, 2025),
the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order staying motion to
certify class and appoint lead counsel.

The Court stays consideration of this Motion pending the outcome of
the Supreme Court case.

The Court further applies its April 6, 2026, Minute Order to this
Motion.

Counsel shall propose next steps related to this Motion in its JSR
due ten days after the Supreme Court announces its opinion.

The nature of suit states Immigration --- Other Immigration
Actions

Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and
businessman.[CC]

FANTASIA TRADING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fantasia Trading LLC dba Eufy, Case No.
0:26-cv-03145-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., June 30, 2026) alleges that the
Defendant's Website, www.eufy.com is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations.

As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's
Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's
Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader
users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website
content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website
users, the suit alleges.

In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                  chad@throndsetlaw.com
                  jason@throndsetlaw.com

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: O'Donovan Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA O'DONOVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00956 (N.D.
Ind., June 29, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all time worked,
resulting in unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for
Defendant as hourly, non-exempt healthcare employees. The Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant from approximately March 1, 2026, until
approximately May 11, 2026, as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

Specifically, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly
Registered Nurse in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit in Olympia
Fields, Illinois.

The Defendant has operated hospitals and medical facilities
throughout Illinois and Indiana. The Defendant employees hourly
healthcare employees to provide various healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Jay E. Krasovec, Esq.  
          Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
                  jkrasovec@ohlaborlaw.com
                  nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com

FUTU HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Suit Over False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Futu
Holdings Limited ("Futu") (NASDAQ: FUTU). The lawsuit alleges that
Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts regarding Futu's business,
operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) Futu was
not in compliance with the requirements of the China Securities
Regulatory Commission, including because Futu continued to conduct
securities business, public fund sales business and futures
business in mainland China without obtaining the requisite licenses
or approval; (2) as a result, Futu was reasonably likely to face
regulatory penalties, including the disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains and other penalties; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Futu's financial results were overstated.

If you purchased Futu shares between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026,
and experienced a loss on that investment, you are encouraged to
discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or
by visiting the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/futu-holdings/ for more information.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is August 25, 2026.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to
vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.

CONTACT:

     Corey Holzer, Esq.
     Holzer & Holzer, LLC
     (888) 508-6832
     cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]


HUB GROUP: Faces Lawler Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LAWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUB GROUP, INC., PHILLIP YEAGER, DAVID YEAGER, KEVIN
BETH, GEOFFREY DEMARTINO, DENNIS MATHEWS, and BRENT RHODES, Case
No. 1:26-cv-07596 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2026) is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Hub
Group securities between April 28, 2023, and May 11, 2026,
inclusive asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case concerns material misstatements in the Company's publicly
filed financial reports with the SEC and other public
communications during the Class Period, concerning the premature
and incorrect revenue recognition of certain transactions, the
understatement of purchased transportation costs and accounts
payable, the effectiveness of internal controls, and drivers of
financial results and growth.

On February 5, 2026, Hub Group announced that the Company's
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2025 should
not be relied upon due to "an error that resulted in the
understatement of purchased transportation costs and accounts
payable in the first nine months of 2025." The Company revealed
that its reports for those quarters "were in each case materially
misstated due to the aforementioned error and should no longer be
relied upon" and that "the Company [wa]s also continuing to assess
the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting and appropriate
remediation steps."

The Company also estimated that "the total amount of the reduction
to accounts payable and purchased transportation costs related to
this issue that was recorded during these periods is $77 million."


As such, Hub Group stated that it "plans to restate its financial
statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2025."

On this news, the price of Hub Group stock declined roughly 18%,
from $51.33 per share at close on February 5, 2026, to $41.96 per
share at close on February 6, 2026. Then, on May 12, 2026, Hub
Group announced that it had "identified certain transactions that
were prematurely or incorrectly recognized or not adequately
supported," causing its 2023 and 2024 annual reports filed with the
SEC to be "materially misstated," such that they "should no longer
be relied upon." The Company did not quantify the expected
misstatement, although it "expected to conclude that it did not
maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting for each of the years ended
December 31, 2024 and 2023," says the suit.

On this news, the price of Hub Group stock declined a further 13%,
from $41.86 per share at close on May 11, 2026, to $36.62 per share
at close on May 12, 2026.

Hub Group is a transportation and logistics freight carrier that
provides trucking and related services to operators across the
supply chain. The Company services a customer base extending across
various industries, including retail, consumer products,
automotive, and durable goods, and reports to be one of the largest
freight transportation providers in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah A. Boeckman, Esq.
          Mary Patricia Burns, Esq.
          BURKE BURNS & PINELLI, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 541-8600
          Facsimile: (312) 541-8603
          E-mail: mburns@bbp-chicago.com
                  sboeckman@bbp-chicago.com

               - and -

          Daniel Lawler, Esq.
          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 789-1340
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
          BFA LAW
          75 Virginia Road
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 265-2991
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
          E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Adam C. McCall, Esq.
          15301 Ventura Boulevard, Suite U1
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
          E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com

LASTPASS US: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Gold Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALAINA GOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LASTPASS US LP, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-12900-DLC (D. Mass., June 25, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to implement reasonable
security measures to safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable
information ("PII"), despite its knowledge of the risks associated
with third-party integrations and its history of prior breaches.

The complaint relates that Plaintiff is a user of Defendant's
LastPass service and provided her PII to Defendant with the
reasonable expectation that it would be kept confidential and
secure. On June 12, 2026, Defendant became aware of a data security
incident involving Klue (klue.com), a third-party market
intelligence platform utilized by Defendant's go-to-market teams.
The data security incident involved an unauthorized actor who
obtained OAuth tokens held by Klue for many of its customers,
including Defendant. The PII impacted by the Data Breach included
contact information and related customer relationship management
(CRM) data, specifically customer names, phone numbers, email
addresses, and physical addresses, as well as support case data and
sales-related data. Following the discovery of the Data Breach,
Defendant advised customers to remain vigilant for possible
phishing attempts and to exercise caution regarding unsolicited
communications, including emails, phone calls, or requests for
sensitive information.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's failure to detect the
Data Breach in a timely manner and its delayed or incomplete
disclosure of the breach's scope deprived Plaintiff of the earliest
ability to take appropriate measures to protect her personal
information. As a result, Plaintiff faces a substantial risk of
identity theft, fraud, and unauthorized use of her personal
information, as cybercriminals may leverage her exposed contact
information to impersonate her or gain access to her other
accounts. Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time and
money on an ongoing basis to mitigate and address the harm caused
by the Data Breach, including the cost of credit monitoring and the
risk of long-term identity theft, says the suit.

Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for
the actual harm suffered, including the diminution of the value of
their PII, out-of-pocket mitigation costs, and emotional distress.
Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the
Defendant to adopt reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard PII
in their custody to prevent future breaches, and to provide
lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft protection services
to Plaintiff and the Class.

Plaintiff Alaina Gold, a citizen and resident of Chico, California,
was a user of Defendant's services.

Defendant LastPass US LP is the provider of LastPass, a cloud-based
password management service that stores, organizes, and auto-fills
users' login credentials, personal information, and digital notes
within a digital vault.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Leviton, Esq.
     Brendan T. Jarboe, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
     Boston, MA 02110
     Telephone: (617) 398-5600
     E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
             brendan@blockleviton.com

          - and -

     Christian Levis, Esq.
     Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
     44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Telephone: (914) 997-0500
     E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
     E-mail: afiorilla@lowey.com

          - and -

     Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
     One Tower Bridge
     100 Front Street, Suite 520
     West Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Telephone: (215) 399-4770
     E-mail: achristina@lowey.com

LAWTON, OK: Wilson Sues Over Unfair Disability Accommodations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE WILSON, pro se, as a class of one, and on behalf of all
others who are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF LAWTON,
OKLAHOMA; JOHN RATLIFF, in his individual and official capacity;
ALAN ROSENBAUM, in his individual and official capacity; ALLYSSA
MCDONALD, in her individual and official capacity; and CHAD GREEN,
in his individual and official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
5:26-cv-01581-JD (W.D. Okla., June 26, 2026) arises from a pattern
of deliberate and coordinated conduct by the City of Lawton and its
officials that transformed lawful requests for disability
accommodations into grounds for retaliation, punishment, and
exclusion.

According to the complaint, for years, Plaintiff Wilson sought
compliance with well-established obligations under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Oklahoma law, including
Oklahoma House Bill 2259, during interactions with law enforcement
and municipal court proceedings. Rather than remedy the known
violations, the Defendants -- including City Manager John Ratliff,
Prosecutor Alan Rosenbaum, Legal Assistant IT Allyssa McDonald, and
Officer Chad Green -- used their authority to deny accommodations,
mischaracterize Plaintiff's conduct, and pursue wrongful and
malicious prosecution. The Plaintiff ultimately prevailed in the
underlying municipal proceedings, further demonstrating the lack of
legitimate basis for Defendants' actions.

The Defendants previously asserted, in a Response filed December
10, 2025, Wilson v. City of Lawton et al., Case No. CV-2024-853-G,
that Plaintiff Wilson had not demonstrated circumstances warranting
appointment of counsel. The Plaintiff clarifies here that he
suffers from medically documented visual and neurological
impairments, including Convergence Insufficiency and Vertical
Heterophoria resulting from a Traumatic Brain Injury, which
substantially impair his ability to read, process information, and
engage in sustained legal analysis. These limitations in which the
communications is taking place, combined with the complexity of
constitutional and disability-based claims and the presence of
multiple government attorneys representing Defendants, create a
substantial risk of fundamental unfairness without the assistance
of counsel, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Wilson also personally assisted and observed that other
people with unseen disabilities appearing before Lawton Municipal
Court were similarly denied accommodations, and protections under
Oklahoma H.B. 2259, demonstrating that all Defendants' conduct
reflects a broader pattern or practice.

This action, thus, seeks to hold Defendants accountable for
retaliation, discrimination, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, and unconstitutional policies and customs that deprive
individuals with disabilities of equal protection and full access
to public programs and services, which the City's final
policymakers had actual and constructive notice.

City of Lawton is a political subdivision of the State of
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

LENA CARBON: GUTIERREZ Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GENRY GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LENA Y CARBON RESTAURANT & LOUNGE INC; LENA Y CARBON
PERUVIAN CUISINE CORP; LENA Y CARBON RESTAURANT & BAR CORP; LENA Y
CARBON RICO II INC; LENA Y CARBON BROSTERIA LLC; LENA Y CARBON RICO
INC; GLORIA PEREZ a/k/a GLORIA PEREZ AIME, Case No. 2:26-cv-07905
(D.N.J., June 29, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys fees and costs arising out of
Defendants' willful and systematic violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants never paid Plaintiff any
premium for the approximately 44 hours he worked in excess of 40
each week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff one and one half
times his regular rate, or one and one-half times the applicable
minimum wage, for any of his overtime hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a kitchen helper
(ayudante de cocina) and dishwasher.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an integrated enterprise
of charcoal-grill and Peruvian restaurants doing business in
northern New Jersey under the common trade name "Lena y
Carbon."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Upperco, et al., v. Lucas
County Board Of Commissioners, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01283 (N.D.
Ohio., Filed June 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge James R. Knepp II
entered an order on Motion to extend deadlines:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification now by Sept. 15,
    2026

-- Defendants' Response by Aug. 17, 2026

-- Reply by Aug. 31, 2026

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.[CC]

 


META PLATFORMS: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 29
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an scheduling order as
follows:

                   Event                           Deadline  

  Hearing on motion for class certification      July 29, 2026
  and motions to exclude experts:

  Close of fact discovery:                       Aug. 14, 2026


Meta is an American multinational technology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mU5Dr2 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:

          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

                - and -

          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


MIAMI GARDENS, FL: Hispanic Officers' Suit Allege Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO VALDES, JUAN GONZALEZ, FRANCISCO R. MEJIDO, RUDY HERNANDEZ,
CHRISTIAN A. VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24461-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2026)
is a class action employment discrimination and civil rights
lawsuit brought by current and/or former law enforcement officers
of the City of Miami Gardens Police Department (MGPD) who have been
subjected to a systemic, deep-seated pattern, practice, and de
facto policy of discrimination and unlawful retaliation.

The complaint relates that the Defendant, the City of Miami
Gardens, has actively fostered, permitted, and executed an ongoing
operational policy targeting White Hispanic Male officers for
disparate treatment based explicitly on their race (White), gender
(Male), and national origin/ethnicity (Hispanic). This
discriminatory policy is carried out through an ongoing campaign of
punitive and humiliating duty transfers, unwarranted written
reprimands, arbitrary suspensions, demotions, and adverse
alterations of assignments designed to derail their careers.
Furthermore, when White Hispanic Male officers engage in protected
activity by complaining of this systemic bias, the City, through
MGPD leadership, engages in swift, coordinated, and severe
operational retaliation to silence dissent and force out targeted
officers.

Through the alleged uniform operational actions, Defendant has
violated the Florida Civil Rights Act by discriminating against and
retaliating against Plaintiffs and the Class based on their race,
gender, ethnicity, and protected oppositional activities, resulting
in identical economic and non-economic harm within the State of
Florida. As a result, each of the Plaintiffs and class members
suffered damages, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to secure declaratory and
injunctive relief to halt the City's unconstitutional employment
practices, and to obtain full compensatory damages, back pay, and
career restitution for themselves and the Class.

Plaintiffs Pedro Valdes,  Juan Gonzalez, Francisco R. Mejido, Rudy
Hernandez and Christian A. Vega are White Hispanic Male law
enforcement officers employed by the Defendant who have been
subjected to ongoing discrimination, hostile duty reassignments,
and retaliation from employment, continuing through the present.

Defendant City of Miami Gardens is a Florida political subdivision
and municipal corporation. The City operates, funds, administers,
and controls the City of Miami Gardens Police Department
(MGPD).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Pizzi, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. PIZZI, P.A.
     6625 Miami Lakes Drive, Suite 316
     Miami Lakes, FL 33014
     Telephone: (786) 594-3948
     E-mail: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com

MISSOURI: Burnett Class Suit Seeks Student Loan Overpayment Refund
------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENDA BURNETT, DAISY URBINA, on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI D/B/A MOHELA, Case No. 5:26-cv-03580 (C.D.
Cal., June 29, 2026) contends that MOHELA directed its
representatives to not properly convey all relevant information
including the actual time it was taking MOHELA to process PSLF
refunds or what entity was responsible for any delays.

Specifically, MOHELA representatives:

   a. Failed to inform borrowers like Plaintiffs that MOHELA would

      not be able to process the request in 90 days.

   b. Failed to inform borrowers that the delays in processes were

      caused within MOHELA, not by the Treasury Department.

   c. Failed to inform borrowers that the Treasury Department
      typically processes requests in less than 5 business days,
      the suit says.

MOHELA applied the loan discharge retroactively to be effective as
of the month a borrower first reached 120 eligible payments. If a
borrower had made payments any time after the effective date of
discharge, MOHELA created a negative account balance. Any negative
account balance was to be refunded to the borrower. MOHELA
communicated this information to borrowers in a series of
communications assuring borrowers that it would proactively refund
any amounts that were due.

Specifically, Plaintiff Urbina became entitled to a refund after
reaching 120 qualifying PSLF payments in December 2024 and
ultimately made approximately two excess qualifying payments.
Despite being owed a refund upon discharge of her loans, MOHELA
failed to provide substantive information regarding the refund
process or timing and allowed Plaintiff Urbina to believe the
refund would be processed within approximately 90 days.

Plaintiff Urbina remained without the refund for more than 17
months. Similarly, after Plaintiff Burnett became entitled to a
refund for excess PSLF payments, including approximately 49
payments made beyond the 120-payment threshold, MOHELA failed to
provide substantive information regarding the refund process or
timing and allowed her to believe the refund would be processed
within approximately 90 days.

Plaintiff Burnett remained without the refund for more than a year
and a half after becoming entitled to it.

Following the delays, Plaintiffs and Class Members often called
MOHELA to ask how long a refund would take. The Plaintiff Urbina
submitted qualified written requests to Defendant on March 23,
2026, seeking information regarding overpayments and being due a
refund.

Plaintiff Burnett submitted qualified written requests to Defendant
on March 23, 2026, seeking information regarding overpayments on
her loans and being due a refund.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members borrowed student loans under the
William D. Ford Direct Loan Program (Direct Loans) and successfully
completed the terms of the PSLF program by making the required 120
payments while enrolled in a qualifying repayment plan and working
for an eligible employer.

The Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, also
known as the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority or MOHELA is
one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the
United States. Its headquarters are in Chesterfied, Missouri, a
suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. It is owned by the State government
of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          134 Mineola Blvd, 2nd Floor
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Austin Hinkle
          PUBLIC GOODS PRACTICE, LLP
          502 W 7th St STE 100
          Erie, PA 16502
          Telephone: (215) 931-9240
          E-mail: austin@publicgoodspractice.com

NEENAH INC: Koth Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Koth and Dustin Korcharski, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Neenah, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00599
(W.D. Wisc., June 29, 2026) seek redress for Neenah's failure to
pay Plaintiffs straight time and overtime wages required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are current employees of Neenah who work at its
facility located in Stevens Point, Wisconsin as shift workers.

Neenah is registered with the Wisconsin Department of Financial
Institutions as a foreign corporation. Neenah operates multiple
paper mills in Wisconsin including the Whiting Mill where the Named
Plaintiffs work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          Email: yh@previant.com

NORTHWEST BANK: Breaches of Fiduciary Duties, O'Malia Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL O'MALIA, on behalf of the Northwest Bank 401(k) Plan, and on
behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of
the plan v. NORTHWEST BANK; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-30 IN THEIR
CAPACITIES AS FIDUCIARIES, Case No. 1:26-cv-00160 (W.D. Pa., June
29, 2026) seeks to remedy the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income &
Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, defined contribution plans that are
qualified as tax-deferred vehicles have become the primary form of
retirement savings in the United States and, as a result, America's
de facto retirement system. Unlike traditional defined benefit
retirement plans, in which the employer typically promises a
calculable benefit and assumes the risk with respect to high fees
or underperformance of pension plan assets used to fund defined
benefits, defined contribution plans operate in a manner by which
participants bear the risk of high fees and investment
underperformance.

As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this
Complaint, the Defendants were obligated to act prudently and for
the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The
Defendants violated their fiduciary duty of prudence by imprudently
removing the Plan's investment in the Vanguard Target Retirement
Fund series (the Vanguard TDF) and replacing that series with the
American Century One Choice Fund series (the AC TDF) from 2021
through the present. This decision was made despite the Vanguard
TDF's strong long term performance under the universally accepted
Modern Portfolio Theory measuring, returns, risk adjusted
performance, manager performance, and cost.

As a result of Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations
of ERISA, particularly Defendants' decision to terminate the Plan's
shares in the Vanguard TDF series and select the AC TDF instead,
Plaintiff was subject to underperformance and suffered financial
losses, alleges the suit.

Northwest Bank offers tailored insurance, loans and digital banking
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel K. Natirboff, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA  17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Email: Dann@capozziadler.com
                 markg@capozziadler.com
                 jamesm@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Alexandr Rudenco, Esq.
          MILBERG, PLLC
          800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com
                  acody@milberg.com

NOVO NORDISK: Fails to Safeguarded Private Info, Kilburg Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE KILBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO NORDISK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-07823 (D.N.J., June 26, 2026) arises from a cyberattack
resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the
possession and custody and/or control of Defendant.

The complaint relates that in its regular course of business
operations, Defendant collects and maintains a substantial amount
of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") and has a
resulting duty to ensure such information is safeguarded from
unauthorized disclosure. Defendant recently identified an IT
security incident involving unauthorized access to its IT Network.
In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the
nature and scope of the breach and discovered that the following
types of Private Information were compromised: Patient ID (random
alphanumeric string) and information on trial participation, sex,
date of birth, Biomarkers, Health/immunogenicity data, and
lifestyle factors, e.g. smoking, alcohol use, BMI. On June 11,
2026, Defendant published a notice online about the Data Breach.

The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the
victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their Private Information, asserts the
complaint.
The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure of her
PII/PHI -- which violates her rights to privacy. Plaintiff is now
subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity
theft, and misuse resulting from her PII/PHI being placed in the
hands of unauthorized third parties, the complaint adds.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and the
Class, monetary damages and injunctive relief including lifetime
credit monitoring and ID theft monitoring.

Plaintiff Janice Kilburg is a Data Breach victim.

Defendant Novo Nordisk, Inc. is the major United States subsidiary
of the global Danish healthcare giant Novo Nordisk A/S. Founded in
1923, the company specializes in researching, developing, and
manufacturing life-saving pharmaceutical products, primarily
focusing on diabetes and obesity care, as well as rare blood and
endocrine disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
     CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
      BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
             jalperstein@carellabyrne.com

          - and -

     Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
     LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
     954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
     Suite 205, #10518
     San Juan, PR 00907
     Telephone: (215) 789-4462
     E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

NUTRIEN AG: Faces JS Farms Suit Over Fertilzer Inflated Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JS FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC
FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES
NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC;
KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER
BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; YARA NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 6:26-cv-01203-EFM-BGS (D. Conn.,
June 30, 2026) is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, on behalf of a class of American farmers and agricultural
purchasers who directly purchased Fertilizer Products manufactured
by Defendants at artificially inflated prices from January 1, 2021
through the present.

The case seeks to hold Defendants accountable for the billions of
dollars they unlawfully extracted from American agriculture, and to
restore for the farmers the benefits of the competitive market
conditions to which they are entitled under federal law.

Accordingly, the Defendants in this case collectively control the
American fertilizer supply chain from mine to farm gate. For
example, Nutrien and Mosaic together account for more than 90% of
North American phosphate and potash production capacity, and CF
Industries, Koch, Nutrien, and Yara control 82% of domestic
production of nitrogen.

Beginning in or around 2021 and continuing through the present,
Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain
fertilizer prices at supracompetitive levels and to restrict supply
in order to sustain those prices. The result was predictable and
documented: fertilizer prices tripled, quadrupled, and in some
products quintupled from their 2020 baseline, generating record
profits for each Defendant while imposing catastrophic input cost
increases on American farmers.

The financial record is damning. Between 2020 and 2022, Nutrien's
profits increased approximately 1,575%. Mosaic's net earnings rose
approximately 438%. CF Industries' profits increased more than
900%. No competitive explanation accounts for profits growing 10 to
15 times faster than costs, the suit contends.

Instead, they are cartel profits, arising from Defendants'
coordinated exercise of market power. The federal government has
reached the same conclusion, the suit adds.

JS Farms operates a farm at 5843 West State Road 18, Delphi,
Indiana and produces corn and soybean. JS Farms has purchased
fertilizer products from Defendant Nutrien Ag Solutions at prices
that were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' price
fixing conspiracy during the Class Period.

Nutrien Ag is a subsidiary and the retail arm of Nutrien Ltd. and
is the largest agricultural retailer in the United States,
capturing approximately 21% of all United States agricultural
retail sales, with a significant majority of its fertilizer sales
generated from Nutrien Ltd.'s own production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Cherepanov, Esq.
          Patrick McGahan, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 S Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: pcherepanov@scott-scott.com
                  pmcgahan@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1890
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 369-8244
          E-mail: cburke@burke.law

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com

NYC HEALTH: Faces Morris Suit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESMIE MORRIS f/k/a ESMIE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated employees v. NYC HEALTH + HOSPITALS, Case No.
1:26-cv-05522 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2026) seeks to redress
Defendant's discriminatory pay practices, in violation of the Equal
Pay Act.

These claims are brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated persons during the applicable Fair Labor
Standards Act limitations period who suffered damages as a result
of Defendant's willful violations of the EPA.

The Plaintiff also brings a retaliation claim against Defendant
under the FLSA, arising from Defendant's termination of Plaintiff
approximately seven weeks after she filed a lawsuit alleging, among
other claims, violations of the EPA.

The Plaintiff joined NYC Health + Hospitals in February 2007 as a
Staff Nurse. Over the course of her career with Defendant,
Plaintiff demonstrated exceptional professional performance,
earning steady promotions and multiple excellence awards.

The Plaintiff was promoted from Staff Nurse to Supervisor of
Nursing in 2014, to Associate Director of Nursing in 2016, and to
Director of Nursing effective July 11, 2022.

NYC Health + Hospitals, officially the New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, operates the public hospitals and clinics in
New York City as a public benefit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          E-mail: LLeon@mizrahikroub.com

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court OKs Class Cert. in Jail Plumbing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Talbot, writing for The News Tribune, reports that the legal
battle over a plumbing issue in the Pierce County Jail that former
inmates claim administrators ignored for decades while sewage
backups and fumes affected dozens of cell blocks hit a turning
point June 23. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly granted class
certification to all the jail's detainees who have been
incarcerated in cell blocks with unremedied plumbing defects that
led to allegedly unsanitary living conditions since May 2020, and
all detainees who will be held in those cell blocks in the future.

Zilly, adopting federal Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan's previous
report and recommendation, appointed two former inmates, Echota C.
Wolfclan and Zakery Bonds, as class representatives. In class
actions, one or a few people sue on behalf of a group or class of
people who have similar claims. The cutoff of May 2020 for class
members is due to the statute of limitations for the claims.
Vaughan's report noted that there are about 550 inmates at the jail
in downtown Tacoma at any time and thousands are detained there
annually. Vaughan said "likely thousands" fell into the proposed
class that Zilly adopted. Attorneys for Wolfclan and Bonds are
seeking an injunction to force Pierce County to fix the jail's
infrastructure issues. It's unclear how much that could cost. A
county spokesperson recently told The News Tribune that it would
cost $95 million to renovate the county's minimum security jail
next to the Main Jail that the lawsuit centers on. A 2014
engineering report that recommended a broader overhaul of the
jail's plumbing and replacing toilets estimated it would cost $3.1
million. An injunction could leave the county vulnerable to
liability in over two dozen stayed or consolidated federal lawsuits
that also make claims about poor conditions in the jail.

The attorneys also have asked the court to award Wolfclan and Bonds
compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
trial and attorneys fees and costs for the entire class.
Class-actions in other states over jail conditions have led to
multi-million dollar settlements. The defendants have sought to
dismiss the case by arguing in part that backups into cells can be
caused by inmates intentionally or accidentally clogging toilets
rather than a plumbing defect, and that odors can come from inmates
refusing to shower or spreading feces around their cells during
mental health episodes or when upset. Zilly also decided to exclude
the testimony of a former contractor that the county sought to call
as an expert witness, Dan Rapp. That will make it more difficult
for the county to counter experts called by Wolfclan and Bonds.
Rapp had given the opinion in court documents that backups at the
jail were nearly impossible without a clog in the vertical riser.
"We are thrilled that Judge Zilly adopted Judge Vaughan's
well-reasoned and thorough decision certifying the class and
excluding the testimony of the Defendants' primary expert," said
Jenna Poligo, an attorney for Wolfclan, Bonds and the entire class.
"We look forward to continuing to litigate to fix the Jail's
plumbing on behalf of all class members."

Adam Faber, a spokesperson for the Prosecuting Attorney's Office,
which defends the county from lawsuits, said Monday, June 29, that
the county generally does not comment on pending litigation.
Defendants in the lawsuit include Pierce County and the County
Council, former Chief of Corrections Patti Jackson, former Sheriff
Ed Troyer, former corrections Capt. Matthew Dobson and corrections
Sgt. Anthony Mastandrea. Now that Zilly has decided the
long-running case can proceed as a class action -- the lawsuit was
filed in 2023 -- the next steps will decide the outcome of the
case, either through motions to the court or at trial. Wolfclan has
been a defendant in 18 Pierce County criminal cases since 2004,
according to Vaughan's report, which has led to repeated periods of
incarceration at the jail. Bonds was detained there for about three
years while he awaited trial for DUI vehicular homicide and
vehicular assault, for which he was sentenced to 27 years in
prison. In declarations filed in court, both men have described
toilets overflowing with raw sewage in their cell blocks when
neighboring inmates flushed. Wolfclan has claimed contact with the
sewage left him with an uncomfortable rash that remained for two
weeks, and that the stench of the sewage gave him headaches and
nausea.

Jail staff have also filed repeated complaints about the sewer gas
smell, according to Vaughan's report. Vaughan said temporary fixes
such as dumping water down sewage pipes and spraying air freshener
were used instead of funding remediation. An employee who worked
for 32 years in Facility Management testified, according to
Vaughan, that most people in the maintenance department knew about
the backflushing and odor issues since at least 2013 and that the
issues persisted until he retired in 2022. [GN]


PINE REST: Ellison Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAROL ELLISON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PINE REST CHRISTIAN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, Case No. 1:26-cv-01973
(W.D. Mich., June 30, 2026) is a collective action to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from Pine Rest pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Pine Rest employed Ellison as one of
its Hourly Employees in Ellison and the other Hourly Employees
regularly work more than 40 hours. But Pine Rest does not pay them
for all hours worked. Additionally, Pine Rest automatically deducts
30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal
periods" (Rine Rest's "auto-deduction policy").

Finally, Pine Rest does not pay Ellison and the other Hourly
Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay -- based on
all remuneration -- for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is
defined as:

All hourly employees who Pine Rest paid under its auto deduction
policy, rounding policy, training policy, and/or bonus pay scheme,
during the last three years through final resolution of this
action.

Pine Rest states it is "the second-largest non-profit mental health
care provider in the country offering the full continuum of care
from [its] 220-acre main campus, which includes a state-of-the-art
psychiatric urgent care center and a soon-to-be-built pediatric
behavioral health center, plus outpatient locations and telehealth
services throughout Michigan."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

              - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC  
          5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400  
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  
              - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

STIIIZY INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for 2.95-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received
notice from Stiiizy that a data breach in October 2024 affected
their personal information may qualify to claim up to $7,500 and/or
credit monitoring from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity
incident compromised 387,555 current and former customers and other
individuals.

Stiiizy Inc. agreed to pay $2,950,000 to settle a class action
lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect customer data,
resulting in a data breach in which an unauthorized third party
accessed personal information.

Who can file a claim for a Stiiizy data breach payout?

Class members must meet one or more of the following criteria:

-- They reside in the United States.

-- The data breach Stiiizy announced on Jan. 7, 2025, may have
impacted their personally identifiable or private health
information.

Individuals may have received a notice from Stiiizy stating the
breach compromised their information. However, those who did not
receive a notice but have reason to believe the breach impacted
them can still file a claim.

How much are settlement payments?

Class members have the following benefit options:

-- Reimbursement for documented losses: Class members can claim up
to $7,500 for unreimbursed costs related to the breach.

    -- If the total of the approved claim is less than the pro rata
cash payment, the class member will receive the pro rata cash
payment amount.

-- Pro rata cash payment: Class members who do not submit a
documented losses claim can submit a claim to receive a pro rata
cash payment from the remaining net settlement fund.

    --California residents will receive twice the pro rata cash
payment of non-California residents.

-- Credit monitoring and insurance services: All class members can
elect to receive two years of credit monitoring and insurance
services. This includes three-bureau credit monitoring, fraud
consultation, up to $1,000,000 in in identity theft insurance
coverage and identity theft restoration services.

    -- Class members who are currently enrolled in credit
monitoring services can defer their enrollment by 12 months at no
charge.

How to claim a class action rebate

To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim
online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the
settlement administrator.

Settlement administrator's mailing address: Stiiizy Data Breach
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1868, Baton Rouge, LA 70821

The claim deadline is Sept. 10, 2026.

Required proof and claim information

Documented losses claims require supporting documentation, which
may include receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements
showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, and other proof of
identity theft or fraud traceable to the data breach.

Payout options

-- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for
mailed claims)
-- Electronic payment

Settlement fund breakdown

The $2,950,000 settlement fund will include:

-- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $280,840
-- Attorneys' fees: Up to $737,500
-- Attorneys' expenses: Estimated at $30,000
-- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each ($15,000
total)
-- Credit monitoring services: Cost determined by number of claims
filed
-- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds

Important dates

-- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 26, 2026
-- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 10, 2026
-- Final approval hearing: Oct. 19, 2026

When is the Stiiizy data breach settlement payout date?

The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved
claimants approximately 30 days after it completes claim processing
or 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement,
whichever is later.

Why did this class action settlement happen?

The class action lawsuit alleged Stiiizy failed to implement
reasonable security measures to protect customer data, leading to a
data breach in October 2024. The plaintiffs claimed this allowed an
unauthorized third party access personal information.

Stiiizy denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the
expense and uncertainty of continued litigation and a possible
trial. The settlement also requires Stiiizy to enhance its
cybersecurity practices.

Settlement Open for Claims
Award: Up to $7,500 and/or credit monitoring
Deadline: September 10, 2026 [GN]

TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Drain Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DRAIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:26-cv-04499 (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2026) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data
breach involving personally identifiable information that Defendant
detected on or around February 4, 2026.

According to the complaint, the Defendant determined that personal
information was accessed or taken from its network and systems. The
Defendant sent notice letters to Plaintiff and Class Members,
informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in
the Data Breach.

Additionally, the Defendant posted a Notification of Data Security
Incident on its public-facing website. At least the following types
of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data
Breach: names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and/or financial
account information.

The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect individuals' sensitive data.

As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of
its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and
disclosed, says the suit.

The action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons
whose Private Information was exposed as a result of the Data
Breach.

The Plaintiff and individuals impacted by the Data Breach directly
or indirectly provided their Private Information to Defendant in
connection with the services Defendant provides.

The Defendant administers the payment of insurance premiums and
provides customer service for bi-weekly mortgage acceleration
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITIZ OSTROW P.A.
          65 Overhill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (215) 967-8799
          E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com  

               - and -

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

TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lindsay Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LINDSAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
5:26-cv-04490 (E.D. Pa., June 29, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for its grossly negligent failure to use statutorily
required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect
Class members' personal information.

As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant
obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class
members.  By taking possession and control of Plaintiff’s and
Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to
securely store and protect it.

The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of
Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to
access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber,
exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it.

In February 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals infiltrated Tower
Administrative's inadequately protected computer network and gained
access to the personally identifiable information (PII) of tens of
thousands of individuals (the Data Breach).

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have already suffered damages. For example, now that their Personal
Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains,
Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of
identity theft. The risk will continue for the rest of their lives,
as Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with the
danger of identity thieves possessing and using their Personal
Information, the suit contends.

Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost
time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the Data
Breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing. The Plaintiff
brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class and
seeks actual damages and restitution. The Plaintiff also seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant
improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols,
future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring
services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and
proper.

Tower Administrative administers payment of insurance premiums and
provides customer service or mortgage acceleration programs. The
Company is limited liability partnership with its principal place
of business located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Telephone: (405) 389-4989
          E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com

TRAFFIC TECH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Frainey Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR FRAINEY and DEYANIRA TORRES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TRAFFIC TECH, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-07636 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2026) arises from the
Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current
and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data
when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach (the Data Breach). It is unknown
for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to the
Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect,
stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' PII, the suit says.

Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class' PII. In short, the Defendant's failures
placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them
easy targets for cybercriminals, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims, and they bring this class
action individually and on behalf of all others harmed by
Defendant's misconduct.

The Defendant is a logistics company covering air, land, and sea
travel and providing warehousing and customs brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC  
          One Magnificent Mile
          980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago IL, 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com  
                  raina@straussborrelli.com

VINCERO INC: Rosenberg Sues Over Illegal Telephone Solicitation Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHMUEL ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VINCERO INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-03777-JLS-GC (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for sending unlawful marketing text messages,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint relates that the Defendant maintains and/or has
access to outbound transmission reports for all telephone
solicitations advertising/promoting its services and goods. On
April 1, 2023 and November 27, 2023, Defendant made telephone
solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Plaintiff
never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing
Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after
9 pm.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in the intrusion
into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff Shmuel Rosenberg is the regular user of the telephone
number that received the solicitations.

Defendant Vincero Inc. is a Corporation with its headquarters
located in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
     1515 NE 26th Street
     Wilton Manors, FL 33305
     Telephone: 754-444-7539
     E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com

WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Chia Seed Product False Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLIS PALMIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-10140 (S.D. Fla., June
29, 2026) contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a
price premium for Organic Chia Seed product based upon Defendant's
marketing and advertising campaign including its false and
misleading representations and omissions on the Product's labels in
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.


The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells
products. Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the
effects of the ingredients in the products they use. Companies,
such as Defendant, have capitalized on consumers' desire for
products, and indeed, consumers are willing to pay, and have paid,
a premium for these products.

Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently
ascertain or verify whether a product contains unsafe substances,
such as mold and yeast, especially at the point of sale, and
therefore must and do rely on Defendant to truthfully and honestly
report what the Product contains or is at risk of containing on the
Product's packaging or labels, says the suit.

The Defendant's Organic Chia Seed product was found to contain
exceedingly high levels of mold, indicating spoilage. The
Defendant's Great Value (Walmart) Organic Chia Seeds had 8X the
allowable level of mold. The Product's packaging does not identify
any contaminants. Indeed, mold and yeast are not listed anywhere on
the packaging, nor is there any warning about the inclusion (or
even potential inclusion) of mold and yeast in the Product. This
leads reasonable consumers to believe the Product does not contain,
and is not at risk of containing, mold and yeast. However, the
Product contains or is at risk of containing these contaminants,
the suit contends.

Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
Product, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the
amount of the premium paid.

Plaintiff Nicholis Palmier is a natural person and a citizen of
Monroe County, Florida, residing in Marathon. The Plaintiff
purchased his Great Value Organic Chia Seeds at the Walmart
Supercenter in Homestead, Florida.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of over 5,000 supercenters throughout the nation,
with almost four hundred in Florida alone, selling everything from
furniture to electronics to groceries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          Nisha Wright, Esq.  
          The Wright Law Office, P.A.
          515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
                  nisha@wrightlawoffice.com

WESTERN REFINING: Black Seeks Premium Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
TABITHA BLACK, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved
employees, and the general public v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20659 (Cal. Super., June 29, 2026) is a
representative action against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal
periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; and failed
to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from approximately November 15, 2024 through April 12,
2025.

In addition, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees were not
paid at least two times the minimum wage for all hours worked. The
Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the aggrieved
employees for such necessary business expenses incurred by them,
says the suit.

Western Refining R was an independent oil refining and retail
subsidiary that operated over 260 convenience stores and gas
stations across the Southwestern and Upper Midwestern United
States. They marketed primarily under the Giant, Mustang, and
Sundial brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109


                            *********

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 ***