260710.mbx

260710.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 10, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 137 Headlines 1741 GOURMET DELI: Bravo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages 3M COMPANY: Court Extends Class Cert Filing Deadline ACREDITED SURETY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Class Settlement AMERICOR FUNDING: Cardero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION: Navarro Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval APPLE INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Doe Suit to 7th Circuit ASIAN BUFFET: Mercado Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ASSISTED HOME RECOVERY: Adame Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS: Moore Sues Over Copyright Act Violations BETH TISCHLER: Intervening Plaintiffs Seek OK to Intervene BROOME COUNTY, NY: Shabazz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. CEDAR ROOFING: Trujillo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CHALLENGE MFG. COMPANY: Dykman Sues Over Failure to Protect PII CHICOS DISTRIBUTION: Alonzo Suit Removed to S.D. California CIVIL LOGISTICS: Hartridge Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Back Wages CLINICAL REGISTRY: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Walden Says CLOONAGH ELECTRICAL: Montes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA COCA-COLA CO: Palmer Seeks to File Certain Docs Under Seal COCA-COLA COMPANY: Palmer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 14, 2027 COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Plaintiff Bid to Re-open Discovery Tossed CROUSE HEALTH HOSPITAL: T.J. Files Suit in N.D. New York DANAHER CORP: Warren Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Health Info, Harvey Says DESTINATION XL GROUP: Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California DIGITAL CURRENCY: Conceals Genesis Global Insolvency, Gowda Says DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Briefs DRIVE SALLY LLC: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. New York DUANE MORRIS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Garland Due Sept. 25 EAN HOLDINGS: Santiago Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ELAN CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges ELON MUSK: McAferty Bid to Modify Protective Order OK'd ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seek to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply in Copeland ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply in PPI ENTERPRISE FLEET: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California FIFTH THIRD BANK: Bid for Class Cert. in Howards Due Feb. 15, 2027 FRESENIUS KABI USA: Turner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois G6 HOSPITALITY: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 5th Circuit GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Pereda Due Nov. 23 GOODRX HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certication Bid Due Nov. 10 GOOGLE LLC: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Missouri GRAND CANYON: Parties Seek Modification of Case Schedule HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Cert. Deadlines in Leverman Suit Vacated HYDRAFACIAL LLC: Class Settlement in Davalos Suit Gets Initial Nod HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Carroll" IHOP RESTAURANTS: Omelettes Contain Buttermilk, Mollins Alleges INNOPHOS INC: Hampton Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA INTRINSIC CONSTRUCTION: Suarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JONATHAN BECK: Lee Suit Seeks Class Certification JOSEPH BELANOFF: Court Stays LeRiger Suit JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Portions Under Seal JRPAC INC: Gomes Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA KATHARINE SURKIN: Plaintiffs Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification KENTUCKY: Court Won't Issue TRO Against Bill 185 KRISTI NOEM: E.M.P.C. Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot KRISTI NOEM: Los Angeles Press Wins Class Certification Bid KROGER CO: Class Settlement in Kirkbride Suit Gets Initial Nod KROGER CO: Settlement Deal in Kirkbride Gets Initial nod LOS ANGELES, CA: Matthews Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid LULULEMON USA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Overcharges MARYLAND: Palmer Wins Class Cert Bid MONSTER RESERVATIONS: Misclassifies & Underpays Workers, Suit Says MSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces MCRHC Class Action in New York MY GOALS: Brent Must File Class Cert Bid by July 30 NATIONAL TENANT: Settlement Deal in Clermont Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK CITY: Wins Bid to Keep Juvenile Cavity Inspections NEW YORK, NY: Jefferson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NEW YORK, NY: Phillips Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NOVO NORDISK: Court Tosses TDF Selection Claims in 401(k) Suit OILCREEK GENERAL: Hamel Seeks to Certify Proposed Class OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Roper PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Wins Class Certification Bid PITNEY BOWES: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Guastella Suit Alleges PORTLAND LEATHER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Lyden Due August 28 PRESCOTT, AZ: Scheduling Conference Set for July 17 PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge SAMBA TV: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dellasala Due Jan. 27, 2028 SCHWARTZ FRUITS: Conditional Cert Bid in Valesquez Due July 20 SILVER CROSS: Hinton Seeks Unpaid OT, Regular Wages Under FLSA SINGULARITY FUTURE: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Proposed Settlement SSPS LLC: Boatner Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Circuit STAR POWER: Garcia Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice STRYKER EMPLOYMENT: Class Cert Hearing Reset to Nov. 5 STUBHUB INC: Faces Moghal Class Suit Over World Cup Ticket Resale TICKETMASTER LLC: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 16 TODD BLANCHE: Coe Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid UNITED PARCEL: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Briefing Schedule UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Kingdom Suit UNITED STATES: Soumare Seeks to Certify Class WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 30, 2027 WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Court Tosses Rowland Complaint XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Longoria Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ********* 1741 GOURMET DELI: Bravo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Leonel Bravo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 1741 GOURMET DELI INC. d/b/a FIRST AVENUE GOURMET DELI, 1ST AVE GOURMET DELI LLC d/b/a FIRST AVENUE GOURMET DELI, CAFETERIA MARKETPLACE INC. d/b/a CAFETERIA MARKETPLACE, THIRD AVE CAFE & DELI INC. d/b/a EASTVILLE MARKETPLACE, and WASEEM A. AHMED, Case No. 1:26-cv-05449 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid overtime premiums, due to compensation of overtime at a straight time rate; damages for late payment of wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff with the proper overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. Because Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work at least 54 hours per week, no fewer than 14 of those hours were subject to compensation at the overtime premium rate. The Defendants knew that Plaintiff was scheduled to work in excess of 40 hours per week, and that any failure to pay overtime premiums for those hours would necessarily result in a violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a deli man, cashier, and delivery worker at Defendants' Cafeteria Marketplace. The Defendants own and operate 3 deli establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 3M COMPANY: Court Extends Class Cert Filing Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jayden Varline, et al., v. The 3M Company, Case No.3:24-cv-00859 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Dec. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time. The moves the deadlines associated with class certification briefing as close to the dispositive motion deadline as the court can manage. The parties should expect no further extensions of the class certification deadlines. The nature of the suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. 3M is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial products and solutions.[CC] ACREDITED SURETY: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on June 25, 2026, will move for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: -- preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlements with Defendants Accredited Surety And Casualty Company, Inc.; American Contractors Indemnity Company; American Surety Company; Bankers Insurance Company; Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company; The North River Insurance Company; Seaview Insurance Company; Seneca Insurance Company; Sun Surety Insurance Company; United States Fire Insurance Company; Universal Fire & Casualty Company; Williamsburg National Insurance Company; and William B. Carmichael; -- approving the form and manner of Notice to the Settlement Class; -- approving the selection of the Settlement Administrator; and -- scheduling a Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Class includes: "all persons who, between Feb. 24, 2004 and March 18, 2026 (the "Settlement Class Period"), paid for part or all of a commercial bail bond premium in connection with a California state court criminal proceeding." Specifically excluded from this Settlement Class are: the Defendants in the Action; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant and any person acting on their behalf; any person who acted as a bail agent during the Settlement Class Period; any judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff; and any juror assigned to this Action. The Settlements create a non-reversionary common fund totaling $66,292,574, which would be added to the existing non-reversionary common fund from the Lexon and DNIC settlements of $3,095,303.49, for a total gross settlement fund of $69,387,877. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wbjPzD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq. Nicole M. Rubin, Esq. Emily N. Harwell, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com kbenson@lchb.com eharwell@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com nrubin@lchb.com AMERICOR FUNDING: Cardero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mauricio Cardero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americor Funding, LLC, Case No. 243256027 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24456-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Americor -- https://americor.com/ -- provides debt solutions to thousands individuals and families all over the country.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Jenniffer Cabrera, Esq. J. CABRERA LAW, P.A. 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 834-0883 Email: jc@jcabreralaw.com AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerisave Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-05070 (S.D. Tex., June 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated Consumer Credit for Civil Miscellaneous Case. AmeriSave -- https://www.amerisave.com/ -- offers all mortgage and refinance products, including conventional fixed rate and adjustable rate, FHA, FHA Streamline, HARP, USDA, VA and Jumbo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W. Commerce St., Ste 1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200 Lomgard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com ANSCHUTZ EXPLORATION: Navarro Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michele Navarro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Anschutz Exploration Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00093-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for final approval of the class action settlement, including final approval of the: 1. Proposed class action Settlement; 2. Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and 3. Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation. The Plaintiff fully details her arguments in support of this relief in her brief in support of this Motion, which is filed contemporaneously with this Motion. Anschutz is a private oil and gas company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJ8e6w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - Rick Erb, Esq. RICHARD A. ERB, JR., PC Gillette, WY 82717 Telephone: (307) 682-0215 Facsimile: (307) 682-1339 E-mail: rick@rickerb.com APPLE INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Doe Suit to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- APPLE INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The Plaintiffs initially filed suit in state court in March 2020, alleging that Apple violated BIPA by using its Photos App software to collect and store biometric data—faceprints--without consent from Illinois citizens. Apple subsequently removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On Apr. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel granted on June 5, 2026. The Court finds that the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met. Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, their motion for class certification is granted. The Court appoints Schlichter Bogard LLP, and co-counsel, Montroy Law Offices, LLC, as class counsel. The named Plaintiffs are hereby designated as class representatives. The appellate case is styled as Jane Doe, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 26-8015, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOE, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: Christian G. Montroy, Esq. MONTROY LAW OFFICES, LLC 2416 North Center P.O. Box 369 Maryville, IL 62062 Telephone: (618) 223-8200 Email: cmontroy@montroylaw.com - and - Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Chen Kasher, Esq. Kaitlin Minkler, Esq. Scott A. Bumb, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com jschlichter@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com ckasher@uselaws.com kminkler@uselaws.com Defendant-Appellant APPLE, INC. is represented by: Joseph R. Palmore, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Tiffani Figueroa, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (202) 887-6940 Email: JPalmore@mofo.com - and - Purvi G. Patel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Gregory F. Miller, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98104 - and - Cassandra J. Lincoln, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 ASIAN BUFFET: Mercado Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN MERCADO, and other similarly-situated individuals v. ASIAN BUFFET OF LEHIGH ACRES, INC., d/b/a "ASIAN BUFFET", and ZHENG YUAN ZHENG, a/k/a "DAVID", seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than forty hours during one or more weeks on or after June of 2023, without being adequately compensated. The Defendant is an "all-you-can-eat" Chinese buffet and restaurant located at 1135 Homestead Rd N, Lehigh Acres, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com ASSISTED HOME RECOVERY: Adame Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assisted Home Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Adame, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Assisted Home Recovery, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE068868 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Assisted -- https://assistedcares.com/ -- provides award winning elderly care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Le, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: cle@lelawfirm.com ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS: Moore Sues Over Copyright Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD. and MAIL MEDIA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05536 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for himself and a nationwide Class of creators whose photographs the Daily Mail copied from a social media source, re-hosted on its own servers, and displayed to readers in the United States. The Class proceeds through two Subclasses, each defined by objective facts visible on the face of Defendants' own publications and reflected in their records. For the False-CMI Subclass, the Plaintiff seeks the DMCA's per-violation statutory damages, or, at the Subclass's election, actual damages and the Daily Mail's profits; for the Registered Infringement Subclass, Plaintiff seeks the remedies available under 17 U.S.C. sections 504 and 505. The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the practice violates the Copyright Act and the DMCA, and a narrow injunction reaching the practice and the Daily Mail's handling of CMI. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California. Moore is the sole author of, and owns all copyright in, the photographic portrait at issue. Mail Media operates the United States edition of the Daily Mail's website, dailymail.com (also known as MailOnline), and maintains a newsroom in this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. PARKKINEN PC 808 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200-255 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 919-3590 E-mail: jp@prkknn.com BETH TISCHLER: Intervening Plaintiffs Seek OK to Intervene ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Titan Logistics Group LLC, et al., v. Beth Tischler, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01300-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b), granting their motion to intervene as of right, or alternatively permissively, in the causes of action. The Intervening Plaintiffs sought the position of the Plaintiffs and represented Defendants; no response has been made by represented Defendants, and the Plaintiffs have not taken a position, as of the time of this filing. The Intervening Plaintiffs have not delayed in moving to intervene, as their motion is made near the inception of this case, prior to any final briefing on the request for a preliminary injunction, and before any Answer or motion to dismiss has been filed. Moreover, Intervening Plaintiffs seek to join this lawsuit as they are positioned identically to the named Plaintiffs and face civil and criminal repercussions if they were to distribute and sell their hemp beverages in Ohio—just like the named Plaintiffs. Each Intervening Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm through the loss of actual and forecasted revenue due to the enactment of Senate Bill 56. These are most certainly important legal interests, which should be considered for the purpose of intervention. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2wbs6N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A. Thompson, Esq. Andrew D. McCartney, Esq. ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE FLOWERS LLC Cincinnati, OH 45249 Telephone: (513) 201-5775 Facsimile: (513) 216-9882 E-mail: admccartney@abkf.com cathompson@abkf.com BROOME COUNTY, NY: Shabazz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Broome, et al. The case is styled as Salih Shabazz, Kevin Wright, Cashmeire Albert, Cody West, Tyrone Haskins, all other individuals similarly situated v. County of Broome, Frederick J. Akshar II Broome County Sheriff, Trinity Services Group, Inc., Case No. EFCA2026002129 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Broome Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Other Negligence (Failure Reasonable Care)." Broome County -- https://broomecountyny.gov/ -- is a county in the U.S. state of New York. As of the 2020 United States census.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald R. Benjamin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN 126 Riverside Drive PO Box 607 Binghamton, NY 13902-0607 Phone: 607-772-1442 Fax: 607-772-1678 Email: ronbenjaminlaw@stny.rr.com CEDAR ROOFING: Trujillo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Trujillo, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. CEDAR ROOFING COMPANY, LLC, CEDAR ROOFING MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC, and J. MATTHEW WILKINSON, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-07468 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") for Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL; and unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' wages in violation of the IWPCA. The Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants for more than 40 hours in individual workweeks. During the Relevant Time Period, other similar situated employees, including roofers and general laborers, regularly worked for the Company for more than 40 hours in individual workweeks. During the Relevant Time Period, the uncompensated drive time and the deductions for gasoline from other similarly situated Van Drivers' wages in individual workweeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours, denied such other similarly situated Van Drivers' overtime wages at one and half times their regular rate of pay for all overtime worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a general laborer in December 2006 and then began to work as a roofer in 2008. The Defendants are in the business of providing roofing services in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE 1341 W. Fullerton Ave, Suite 147 Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (312) 945-8737 - and - Danya Moodabagil, Esq. WORKING FAMILIES LEGAL CLINIC Chicago Workers' Collaborative 6925 Cermak Road Berwyn, IL 60402 Phone: (847) 596-7491 CHALLENGE MFG. COMPANY: Dykman Sues Over Failure to Protect PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Dykman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHALLENGE MFG. COMPANY, LLC, Case 2:26-cv-12175-SDK-KGA (D. Mich., June 29, 2026), is brought to hold Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and thousands of similarly situated individuals' sensitive, confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") 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 (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). 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. The Defendant detected the cyberattack of its network on May 8, 2026, whereby unauthorized actors accessed Defendant's systems and acquired files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its students' sensitive data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant is an automobile manufacturer with multiple locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com CHICOS DISTRIBUTION: Alonzo Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Antoinette Alonzo, Nina Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chicos Distribution Services, LLC, Case No. 247439070 was removed from San Diego Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03719-LL-VET to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Chico's Distribution Services, LLC -- https://www.chicos.com/store -- is a part of Chico's FAS, a renowned specialty retailer that offers a wide range of private branded clothing, accessories, and gift items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilach Halperin Klein, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (424) 332-3107 Email: lilach@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: blukitsch@bakerlaw.com CIVIL LOGISTICS: Hartridge Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Back Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Hartridge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIVIL LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02057 (D.N.M., June 26, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were paid an hourly rate with no additional compensation for overtime on hours worked on the Hermits Peak FEMA PA-TAC project in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant knew it was required by the FLSA to pay the Plaintiffs and the Similarly Situated Misclassified Contractors one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and the Similarly Situated Misclassified Contractors any overtime. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime is a violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant on an hourly basis. Civil Logistics LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hessam Parzivand, Esq. Travis Bryan, Esq. THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC 10701 Corporate Dr., Suite 185 Sugar Land, TX 77477 Phone: (832) 233-7527 Phone: (713) 533-8171 Fax: (713) 533-8193 Email: hp@parzfirm.com travis@parzfirm.com CLINICAL REGISTRY: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Walden Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WALDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLINICAL REGISTRY SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03745 (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on April 9, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Clinical Registry Solutions is a healthcare data management and clinical registry company with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com - and - Christopher E. Torres, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: ctorres@eksm.com CLOONAGH ELECTRICAL: Montes Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ EVERARDO MONTES v. CLOONAGH ELECTRICAL CORP. and BLAINE LAHART, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-03929 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees seeking unpaid overtime compensation and related relief brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours per week, but Defendants paid him his straight-time hourly rate for all hours worked, including overtime hours, and never paid him an overtime premium. The Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiff with the wage notice and accurate wage statements required by the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately March 2023 through June 23, 2026, first as an electrician and later as a driver transporting work materials. Cloonagh was engaged in the electrical contracting and construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 832-1000 E-mail: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com COCA-COLA CO: Palmer Seeks to File Certain Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA PALMER, SUE KIM, and IVAN ZERMENO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-04777-GW-CTS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application to file certain documents in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal. The Plaintiff seeks leave to: (i) file under seal portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (ii) file under seal portions of expert opinions in support of the Motion; and (iii) file under seal certain entire documents in support of the Motion as explained in the Declaration of Jason A. Ibey in support of the Plaintiff's application to file certain documents in support of the Plaintiff Victoria Palmer's motion for class certification under seal. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to file under seal parts of Exhibits 1 and 2, which are opinions of the Plaintiff's experts offered in support of the Class Certification Memorandum that state or refer to information which appears to be designated Confidential by the Defendant based on its Confidential designations to the transcript of the deposition of the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) representative, taken on May 29, 2026 (the "Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition"). Coca-Cola is an American multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RGdFrt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gil Melili, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gil@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com COCA-COLA COMPANY: Palmer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA PALMER, SUE KIM, and IVAN ZERMENO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-04777-GW-CTS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Oct. 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), concerning alleged violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); breach of express warranty; intentional misrepresentation; and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following two California-only damages Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): Sprite Class "All persons in California who purchased one or more of Sprite Lemon-Lime, Sprite (Lemon-Lime) Zero Sugar, Sprite Lymonade, Sprite Chill Strawberry Kiwi, Sprite Tropical Mix, Sprite Cherry, and Sprite Winter Spiced Cranberry, between May 27, 2021 and May 27, 2025, that were marketed or represented as "100% Natural Flavors," whether on the product packaging (label or outer packaging) or in online marketing materials." Fanta Class "All persons in California who purchased one or more of Fanta Orange, Fanta (Orange) Zero Sugar, Fanta Strawberry, Fanta Grape, Fanta Pineapple, Fanta Peach, Fanta Piña Colada, and Fanta Berry, between May 27, 2021 and May 27, 2025, that were marketed or represented as "100% Natural Flavors" and/or "100% naturally flavored," whether on the product packaging (label or outer packaging) or in online marketing materials." Excluded from the Classes are fountain drinks, the Defendant's officers, directors, and employees, and persons who purchased the Class Products for resale. Coca-Cola is an American multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2aYT6K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gil Melili, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gil@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Class, Derivative Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Constellation Brands, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2026, that it is facing a consolidated securities class action and derivative actions in various courts over its SEC disclosures. A putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on February 18, 2025 captioned "Meza v. Constellation Brands, Inc., et al.," Case No. 6:25-cv-6107. The complaint names as defendants the company, the company's former president and CEO, its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The initial complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omitted purportedly material facts concerning, among other things, its strategies intended to improve the performance of its wine and spirits business. On July 17, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in the Meza litigation asserting the same causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the same defendants as the original complaint. However it now alleges materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the prospects of its beer business. The amended complaint no longer alleges misstatements or omissions regarding its wine and spirits business. Complaint seeks, among other relief, alleged damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees, and costs. On September 17, 2025, the company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was fully briefed as of December 12, 2025. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled to be held on July 22, 2026. In addition, on March 24, 2025, a purported stockholder of the company filed a complaint in the Western District of New York captioned "Silva v. Newlands, et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-254. On April 21, 2025, a second purported stockholder of the company filed a complaint in the Western District of New York captioned "Mason v. Newlands, et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-00353. On June 24, 2025, a third purported stockholder of the company filed a complaint in the District of Delaware captioned "Wasserman v. Baldwin, et al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-779 (D. Del.). These derivative complaints each seek to assert claims arising under the Exchange Act and state common law, derivatively on behalf of the Company, against current and former directors and officers of the Company. On May 27, 2025, the Western District of New York entered an order consolidating the Silva and Mason litigations and staying proceedings pending the entry of a final judgment in Meza. On August 8, 2025, the plaintiff in the Wasserman litigation filed a notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing that litigation, which was so ordered by the District of Delaware on August 14, 2025. Constellation Brands, Inc. is a leading international producer and marketer of beer, wine and spirits with a portfolio of well-known brands. The company distributes its products primarily in the United States, Mexico, New Zealand and Italy through a variety of retail and on-premise channels. CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Class Cert Hearing Set for Sept. 14, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allegheny County Employees Retirement System, v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, Case No. 3:26-cv-01525-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Oct. 16, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Aug. 17, 2028, 3:00 p.m. (in person) Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 11, 2028 Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 28, 2027 Last day to hear motion Sept. 14, 2027, 2:00 p.m. for class certification: (in person) Motion for class certification briefing schedule: Reply due: Aug. 17, 2027 Opposition due: July 6, 2027 Motion due: May 25, 2027 Corcept is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic, psychiatric and oncologic disorders. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlrEcV at no extra charge.[CC] COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Plaintiff Bid to Re-open Discovery Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01613-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff Amanda Baldino-Miller's motion to re-open discovery is denied; and 2. The Plaintiff Amanda Baldino-Miller's motion to compel is denied. The Plaintiff was given time to pursue this discovery and confront and challenge the Defendant's alleged obduracy. The Plaintiff did not do so. Hence, a further delay of resolving class certification here would prejudice both the putative class members and the Defendants. In addition to unjustifiably seeking to reopen a closed discovery period, the Plaintiff's motion is unworkable because the delay in pursuing resolution of the long-standing discovery dispute—despite several warnings and opportunities to pursue resolution—jeopardizes the balance of the schedule and exacerbates the delay in addressing motions on class certification. Timeliness alone, therefore, provides an independent basis for denying Plaintiff's motion. Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jClWvj at no extra charge.[CC] CROUSE HEALTH HOSPITAL: T.J. Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as T.J., C.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crouse Health Hospital, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-01302-FJS-ML (N.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Wiretapping - Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine. Crouse Hospital -- https://www.crouse.org/ -- is licensed for 506 acute-care adult beds and 57 bassinets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandra Mormile, Esq. Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: amormile@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com DANAHER CORP: Warren Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MICHAEL WARREN, ANDREW BUNENKO, MOHAMED YOUSSEF AMIN BRIHMAT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DANAHER CORPORATION, BECKMAN COULTER, INC., INTEGRATED DNA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PALL CORPORATION, ABCAM, Case No. 1:26-cv-00556-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification from the deadline set by Local Rule 23.1(b) to the end of discovery. The Defendants advised that they oppose the motion. In support of this motion, the Plaintiffs incorporate the reasons set forth in their accompanying Memorandum of Law. Danaher Corporation is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vwl5mh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4761 Facsimile: (813) 559-4870 E-mail: Gtriantis@forthepeople.com medelman@forthepeople.com sophia.walker@forthepeople.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Health Info, Harvey Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN HARVEY, on behalf of her minor child B.E.K.H., and all others similarly situated v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-13015 (D. Mass., June 30, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff's minor child B.E.K.H., and Class Members. Accordingly, the Defendant owes Plaintiff, her minor child B.E.K.H. and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this Private Information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. The cybercriminal group ShinyHunters listed DentaQuest on its leak site in May ShinyHunters claimed that negotiations with DentaQuest failed, and consequently leaked 234 gigabytes of data on May 30, 2026. Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminal group gained unauthorized access to and leaked highly sensitive Private Information, including "names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, and genders, email addresses, and Social Security numbers," says the suit. Dentaquest, LLC provides oral health care services. The Company offers personal dental, state-sponsored, health, group, individual plans, and enrollment solutions for oral health. Dentaquest serves customers in the State of Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law DESTINATION XL GROUP: Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Destination XL Group, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Alfredo Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Destination XL Group, Inc. doing business as: DXL, Case No. 1:26-cv-04925-CDB (S.D. Cal., June 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Destination XL Group, Inc. doing business as DXL -- https://www.dxl.com/ -- is a leading retailer of Men's Big and Tall apparel with 290 retail and outlet store locations throughout the United States.[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 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com DIGITAL CURRENCY: Conceals Genesis Global Insolvency, Gowda Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHWIN GOWDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIGITAL CURRENCY GROUP, INC., BARRY SILBERT, MICHAEL KRAINES, MARK MURPHY, SOICHIRO "MICHAEL" MORO, and DERAR ISLIM, Case No. 3:26-cv-01045 (D. Conn., June 30, 2026) arises out of the Defendants' coordinated scheme to illegally conceal Genesis Global Capital's insolvency, wrongfully retain investor assets, and induce further investment. Genesis Global Capital is a subsidiary cryptocurrency lending arm of the Digital Currency Group, a venture capital company founded by Barry Silbert. Following the collapse of the FTX exchange, Genesis halted withdrawals in late 2022 and eventually filed for bankruptcy, leading to massive financial disputes, SEC fines, and regulatory scrutiny over both entities. The Plaintiff Gowda brings this protective action to assert and preserve state consumer protection and common-law claims dismissed without prejudice in "McGreevy v. Digital Currency Group, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv- 00082-SRU (McGreevy Action)" together with additional common law claims. Plaintiff Gowda does not seek duplicative relief via this Action, and seeks only those damages and remedies that remain unrecovered, and any recovery in this Action shall be reduced to the extent necessary to prevent a double recovery for the same injury. The claims include claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act and Texas common law. Plaintiff Gowda asserts claims for deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices, common-law fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation in the alternative, civil conspiracy, and equitable restitution, including unjust enrichment. These claims arise from the Defendants' concealment of Genesis Global Capital's insolvency and financial condition, their misrepresentations concerning Genesis Yield, DCG's support, Genesis's risk-management practices, and investors' redemption rights, and their coordinated course of conduct that induced Plaintiff and other Texas investors to place or maintain digital assets in Genesis Yield until Genesis suspended redemptions on November 16, 2022. DCG is an American investment company focusing on the digital currency market and decentralized technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna Gancoss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01380-JMC (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for extension of time to file class certification briefs. The Defendant moves-with the Plaintiffs' consent-to extend all deadlines in the Court's May 22, 2026 Minute Order by 30 days to accommodate the Parties' ongoing settlement efforts. This Motion requests new deadlines of Aug. 17, 2026 (motion), Sept. 16, 2026 (opposition), and Oct. 16, 2026 (reply). The Parties are currently entertaining the possibility of settlement, and the District's process for securing settlement authority is still ongoing. The requested extension will allow the District's process to run its course, and for the Parties to engage in settlement discussions thereafter, without the Plaintiffs being prejudiced by the District's delay or unnecessarily expending resources on class certification briefing. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=er3KKx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Honey Morton, Esq. David R. Wasserstein, Esq. Marcus D. Ireland, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 442-9784 E-mail: david.wasserstein@dc.gov DRIVE SALLY LLC: Thomas Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drive Sally LLC. The case is styled as Nykeria Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drive Sally LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05439 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Drive Sally -- https://www.drivesally.com/ -- is a trusted vehicle and service provider in the transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com DUANE MORRIS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Garland Due Sept. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEAGAN GARLAND, et al., v. DUANE MORRIS, LLP, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01783-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline as follows: 1. Counsel1 shall refer to the Judge Bencivengo's Chambers Rules for Civil Cases, which is accessible via the Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed before Judge Bencivengo by July 20, 2026. 3. A telephonic Status Conference will be held on August 21, 2026 at 9:30 AM. The Court will email audio-only Zoom connection information to counsel of record in advance of the conference. 4. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated. All parties must complete all class discovery by Aug. 28, 2026. 5. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than Sept. 25, 2026. 6. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by Oct. 23, 2026. 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on Nov. 5, 2026 at 9:00 AM. 8. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Jan. 15, 2027. Duane Morris is a law firm headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IafVL4 at no extra charge.[CC] EAN HOLDINGS: Santiago Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Santiago, et al., v. EAN Holdings, LLC et al, Case No. 1:26-cv-05289-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order referring the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. The Court further entered an order that: -- an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Aug. 11, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. ET. -- counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. No later than one week (seven (7) calendar days) before the conference, the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave. To the extent the parties disagree about any portion of the Proposed Case Management Plan, they may set forth their respective proposals for the disputed provision, without argument. EAN Holdings provides rental cars, training, disaster recovery, mobility, and technology. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vmWV6 at no extra charge.[CC] ELAN CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ELAN CREATIVE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05412 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.elanflowers.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 4, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Kitchen Potager Herb Garden from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Kitchen Potager Herb Garden, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: flowers and gifts, as well as other types of goods, locations and hours of operation of their physical retail stores and directions thereto, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Kitchen Potager Herb Garden. Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Kitchen Potager Herb Garden but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. P The Defendant operates the Elan Flowers online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Elan Flowers interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ELON MUSK: McAferty Bid to Modify Protective Order OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacqueline McAferty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Elon Musk and America PAC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01346-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Court entered an order that: 1. Grants the Plaintiff's motion to modify protective order to permit discovery sharing and directs that the stipulated protective order is modified to permit the Plaintiffs to share deposition testimony between McAferty and Harvick. 2. Grants in part the Plaintiff's amended motion to extend scheduling order (McAferty) and the Plaintiff's motion to extend scheduling Order (Harvick) and ORDERS that the Phase One discovery deadline is extended for 60 days from the date of this Order. 3. Grants the Plaintiff's motion to compel deposition of the Defendant Musk and supplemental discovery responses, and further support of extension of scheduling order based on the Defendants' failure to supplement discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) and 37(a) and the Plaintiff's motion to compel deposition and responses to discovery. 4. Dismisses the Plaintiff's objection and motion to strike the declaration of Carl Sceusa. Counsel for McAferty withdrew the motion during the hearing. The Court also recommends that Judge Pitman DENY Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Jacqueline McAferty v. Elon Musk & America PAC, No. 1:24-cv-1346-RP) as to McAferty's fraud claim but grant the motion as to her breach of contract claim and dismiss that claim with prejudice. The Court further entered an order the Clerk to remove these cases from this Magistrate Judge's docket and return them to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. The Plaintiffs Jacqueline McAferty and Joy Harvick bring putative class actions against the Defendants Elon Musk and a political action committee he founded, America PAC, over $1 million petition payments before the 2024 election. McAferty and Harvick both brought claims under Texas law for fraud and breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but Judge Pitman dismissed the latter claim in each case. Harvick also asserts an unjust enrichment claim. Both Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to destroy all personally identifiable information ("PII") Plaintiffs submitted to them. Elon Musk is a businessman and former public official. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KnhvWj at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seek to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply in Copeland ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal certain portions of Energizer's sur-reply filed in support of the Defendants' opposition to class certification. Walmart requests that the Court seal the chart entitled "Walmart Class" at page 9 of the Sur-Reply. This is the same chart that appeared at page 45 of the Class Certification Report of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D., which Walmart previously moved to seal on the ground that the chart purports to summarize Walmart's nonpublic transactional sales data. Walmart therefore relies on, and refers the Court to, its previously submitted sealing request and supporting declaration. The identified portions of the Sur-Reply that each Defendant asks the Court to maintain under seal disclose information that Defendants designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" under the Stipulated Protective Order. The sealing requests are also "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." The Defendants submit that their sealing requests involve the same categories of information that this Court has previously found sealable under the compelling reasons standard. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sKuPtO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Portions of Sur-Reply in PPI -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal certain portions of Energizer's sur-reply filed in support of the Defendants' opposition to class certification. Walmart requests that the Court seal the chart entitled "Walmart Class" at page 9 of the Sur-Reply. This is the same chart that appeared at page 45 of the Class Certification Report of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D., which Walmart previously moved to seal on the ground that the chart purports to summarize Walmart's nonpublic transactional sales data. Walmart therefore relies on, and refers the Court to, its previously submitted sealing request and supporting declaration. The identified portions of the Sur-Reply that each Defendant asks the Court to maintain under seal disclose information that Defendants designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" under the Stipulated Protective Order. The sealing requests are also "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." The Defendants submit that their sealing requests involve the same categories of information that this Court has previously found sealable under the compelling reasons standard. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZ7rpB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENTERPRISE FLEET: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA KILGORE and ERIKA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ENTERPRISE FLEET MANAGEMENT, INC., and THE CRAWFORD GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00235-MAL (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion requesting an extension of time, up to and including July 20, 2026, to file a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). On June 22, 2026, counsel for the Defendants conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs and requested that the Plaintiffs consent to an extension of the deadline for the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion due to pre-planned vacations for the Defendants' external and internal counsel for the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. The Parties also agreed to toll the statute of limitations on putative plaintiffs' claims for 18 days for any future opt-ins. On June 18, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion and Memorandum in Support with this Court. Enterprise provides fleet management services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utmArb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Scott D. Meyers, Esq. Kelly A. McLaughlin, Esq. Ryan T. Probasco, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 E-mail: scott.meyers@huschblackwell.com kelly.mclaughlin@huschblackwell.com ryan.probasco@huschblackwell.com FASTENAL COMPANY: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Juan M. Vaca, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fastenal Company, DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV37797 was removed from the Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07017 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Fastenal -- https://www.fastenal.com/ -- is the largest fastener distributor in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FIFTH THIRD BANK: Bid for Class Cert. in Howards Due Feb. 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order granting the amended case management schedule as follows: Event Deadline File amended complaint: July 9, 2026 Completion of additional Plaintiff-Specific Nov. 6, 2026 Discovery: Deadline for the Plaintiff to present the Dec. 4, 2026 Plaintiff's expert for deposition: Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion Feb. 15, 2027 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant's response to April 2, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in April 23, 2027 support of motion for class certification: The Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend to add additional Plaintiff class representatives on Aug. 1, 2025. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion on Feb. 9, 2026, and ordered the parties to undertake limited class discovery on the fourteen individuals named in the motion for leave and jointly propose an amended case schedule. Fifth Third is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zDyShT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com khulick@spanglaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. G. Karl Fanter, Esq. Dante A. Marinucci, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP SunTrust Center, Suite 2300 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com kfanter@bakerlaw.com dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com - and - Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq. Jacob D. Mahle, Esq. Wesley R. Abrams, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, LLP 310 East Fourt Street, Suite 500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4000 E-mail: nlampley@vorys.com jdmahle@vorys.com wrabrams@vorys.com FRESENIUS KABI USA: Turner Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC. The case is styled as Miyako Oglesby Turner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-07481 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Fresenius Kabi -- https://www.fresenius-kabi.com/ -- is the global leader in supplying blood collection bags and devices, supporting blood banks and healthcare facilities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com G6 HOSPITALITY: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY LLC filed on June 22, 2026, a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in connection with an Order in the lawsuit entitled F.F. v. G6 Hospitality Property, LLC, Case No. 1:25-CV-00029-MJT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. G6 seeks mandamus relief directing the district court to certify its order denying judgment on the pleadings for interlocutory appeal. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY LLC is represented by: Julia E. Fine, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3635 Email: jkazam@jonesday.com - and - Jack Carroll, Esq. ORGAIN, BELL & TUCKER LLP 470 Orleans, Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 838-6412 Email: jpc@obt.com - and - Andrew J. Clopton, Esq. JONES DAY 150 W. Jefferson, Suite 2100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 733-3939 Email: aclopton@jonesday.com - and - Bethany K. Biesenthal, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Email: bbiesenthal@jonesday.com GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Pereda Due Nov. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pereda v. General Motors LLC et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-06338-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order extending deadlines in Scheduling Order as follows: Event Date GM to file motion to dismiss: July 22, 2026 Class certification motion and the Nov. 23, 2026 Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the Feb. 16, 2027 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery April 5, 2027 cut-off: Class certification reply due: April 20, 2027 General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xvEz3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine McBride, Esq. Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Nimish R. Desai, 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: rheimann@lchb.com ndesai@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: Renee D. Smith, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.w. Washington, DC 20004 GOODRX HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Certication Bid Due Nov. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, JANE DOE II, JOHN DOE, E.C., JOSE MARQUEZ, and HOLLIS WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CRITEO CORP., META PLATFORMS, INC., and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00501-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Martinez-Olguin entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to modify the scheduling order and extend case deadlines, and granting the parties' joint stipulation to extend the case schedule. Accordingly, the Court's Aug. 25, 2025 Order Setting Schedule is amended to reflect the following deadlines: Event Deadline Substantial completion of production Sept. 8, 2026 of documents responsive to currently pending requests to or from Google: Deadline to file the Plaintiffs' motion Nov. 10, 2026 for class certification, including any expert reports upon which the Plaintiffs rely in their motion: Deadline to file the Defendants' Feb. 5, 2027 oppositions to class certification, including any counter expert reports upon which the Defendants rely in their motions: Deadline to file omnibus sealing April 9, 2027 applications for all class certification briefing: Deadline for first settlement conference: April 16, 2027 GoodRx is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KnoFw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Benedict Y. Hur, Esq. Simona Agnolucci, Esq. Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq. Joshua Anderson, Esq. Tiffany Lin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: bhur@cooley.com sagnolucci@cooley.com esantacana@cooley.com joshua.anderson@cooley.com tiffany.lin@cooley.com GOOGLE LLC: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Google, LLC. The case is styled as Mary L. Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Google, LLC, Case No. 4:26-mc-09007-BP (W.D. Mo., June 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American multinational technology corporation focused on information technology, online advertising, search engine technology, email, cloud computing, software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GRAND CANYON: Parties Seek Modification of Case Schedule -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tanner Smith, Qimin Wang, and Sabrina Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01410-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to supplemental class certification briefing and modifying and extending certain deadlines set forth in the Court's original Case Management Order. The Parties jointly request that the Court modify the current case schedule in the following limited manner: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' supplemental class July 16, 2026 certification brief: The Defendant's supplemental class July 23, 2026 certification brief: In-Person settlement discussions: Oct. 26, 2026 Dispositive motions: Oct. 19, 2026 Allowing the Parties to complete the agreed-upon discovery and briefing first will reduce the risk of premature motion practice on the merits. The requested extensions will also allow the Parties to engage in meaningful settlement discussions with the benefit of fully briefed class certification and dispositive motions Grand Canyon is a publicly traded (NASDAQ:LOPE) education services company that partners with colleges and universities. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q7cJO9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Peter C. Soldato, Esq. Joseph Frate, Esq. Chuck Dender, Esq. Mollie Weiss, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com psoldato@dicellolevitt.com jfrate@dicellolevitt.com cdender@dicellolevitt.com mweiss@dicellolevitt.com - and - Chris Bryant, Esq. Eric Rothschild, Esq. Madeline Wiseman, Esq. Laura Bart, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: chris@defendstudents.org eric@defendstudents.org madeline@defendstudents.org laura@defendstudents.org The Defendant is represented by: Derin B. Dickerson, Esq. Andrew J. Liebler, Esq. Shanique C. Campbell, Esq. Taylor Lin, Esq. Matthew D. Lawson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com andrew.liebler@alston.com shanique.campbell@alston.com taylor.lin@alston.com matt.lawson@alston.com HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Cert. Deadlines in Leverman Suit Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER LEVERMAN, on behalf of all similarly-situated employees of Defendants, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-04768-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order vacating class certification deadlines, trial date, and trial-related deadlines. The Court orders as follows: 1. The current class certification briefing schedule and hearing date are vacated; 2. The current trial date and all trial-related deadlines are vacated; 3. A scheduling conference is set for Friday, Aug. 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.; 4. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than seven (7) days before the scheduling conference addressing: (a) the status of class certification discovery; (b) the effect of the Aerospace spin-off on document custody, witness availability and discovery logistics; and (c) the parties' proposed revised case schedule. Honeywell primarily operates in four areas of business: aerospace, building automation, industrial automation, and energy and sustainability solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFOQDi at no extra charge.[CC] HYDRAFACIAL LLC: Class Settlement in Davalos Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davalos et al., v. Hydrafacial LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08073-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Settlement Class, for purposes of approval and effectuation of this Settlement only, is defined as: "All persons or entities who purchased, leased, or otherwise acquired a of this Order. The Court appoints Plaintiff Spa Thirsty, Inc. and Class Counsel Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law Firm. P.C. and Ralph B. Kalfayan of The Kalfayan Firm, A.P.C. as class representatives and Class Counsel, respectively. 2. No later than 10 days after entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendant shall deposit $10,000 into escrow to cover the costs of Notice. 3. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Friday, Dec. 4, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. Hydrafacial provides skincare services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WZmar1 at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Carroll" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Donald Carroll, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hyundai Motor America (Corporation) and Genesis Motor America LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-cv-1164 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration in an Opinion and Order. Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, purchased a 2017 Genesis G80 equipped with Connected Services, including an SOS emergency button and crash reporting, that operated using 3G networks. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants marketed and sold vehicles with Connected Services despite knowing the technology would become obsolete once 3G networks were discontinued. He filed a putative class action asserting claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express and implied warranties, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment. Defendants first moved to compel arbitration in July 2023, relying on a Connected Services Agreement (CSA) containing an arbitration clause. The Court denied that motion in February 2024, finding the CSA was extraneous to the pleadings, and ordered limited discovery on arbitrability. Following discovery, Defendants filed a renewed motion under 9 U.S.C. Sections 3 and 4. Defendants argued Plaintiff, or his agent Ana Martinez, agreed to the CSA's arbitration clause by re-enrolling the vehicle in Connected Services through Defendants' customer web portal on December 24, 2022. Defendants supported this with business records documenting the enrollment, testimony from their Director of Connected Ops that customer service agents could not process phone enrollments, and a case summary report of communications with Plaintiff. Plaintiff countered that neither he nor Ms. Martinez could access the web portal, and that he instead reactivated the service by phone without being shown any contract terms. Applying the Rule 56 standard following discovery, the Court held Defendants bore the burden of showing no genuine dispute of material fact regarding contract formation under New Jersey law. The Court found Plaintiff's alternative account insufficient to rebut Defendants' business records and testimony, noting Plaintiff offered no evidence specifically contradicting Defendants' proof. Citing similar rulings from other courts, the Court reiterated that general denials are inadequate to defeat arbitration where records unambiguously show assent. The Court also rejected Plaintiff's consideration and impossibility arguments, characterizing the latter as an enforceability issue reserved for the arbitrator. The Court further held that the CSA delegated questions of scope and enforceability to the arbitrator, since Plaintiff did not specifically challenge the delegation clause itself. The CSA stated that all issues, including scope and enforceability, are for the arbitrator to decide under American Arbitration Association rules. The case was filed as a putative class action; no class was certified. The CSA expressly prohibits class-wide arbitration, requiring each party to bring claims only in an individual capacity. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Plaintiff may pursue his claim only through individual, non-class arbitration. The Court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, ordered Plaintiff to submit his claim to arbitration within thirty days, and stayed and administratively terminated the case pending the outcome of arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision dated 24th June, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hKupNW from PacerMonitor.com IHOP RESTAURANTS: Omelettes Contain Buttermilk, Mollins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH M. MOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHOP RESTAURANTS LLC., DINE BRANDS GLOBAL,INC., and JOHN DOES IHOP FRANCHISEE ENTITY, Case No. 618199/2026 (N.Y. Sup., June 30, 2026) is a consumer class action arising from the Defendants' incomplete advertising and sale of iHOP omelettes through third-party delivery. IHOP advertises, markets, and sells omelettes to consumers through multiple third-party delivery platforms using front-facing menu descriptions that describe the omelettes as ordinary omelettes containing meats, cheeses, vegetables, and other listed fillings. Despite knowing that IHOP omelettes contain buttermilk and wheat pancake batter, Defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that fact on the third-party and delivery platform menu where Plaintiff reviewed, selected, customized, and purchased the omelettes. They just omitted their information completely, the suit says. IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain specializing in breakfast foods. Headquartered in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Manning, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS,PC 1393 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 101S Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 Telephone: (631) 608-410 INNOPHOS INC: Hampton Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INNOPHOS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-07929-RK-JBD (D.N.J., June 30, 2026) is a collective and class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who work or worked for Innophos as hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees and who were not paid all overtime compensation and other wages due for all compensable hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees who elect to opt in pursuant to the FLSA, to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other wages unlawfully withheld by Defendant, liquidated damages as provided by 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Additionally, the Plaintiff brings this action for herself and all other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendant violates the FLSA, the IMWL, and the IWPCA through unlawful timekeeping and payroll practices for hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees including ailing to pay employees for compensable pre-shift work, including security, badge/scan, personal protective equipment (PPE), uniform, locker-room, changing, walking, and related activities performed before employees are permitted or able to record paid time, says the suit. The Defendant manufactures phosphate and non-phosphate ingredients for the food, health, nutrition, and industrial end markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com INTRINSIC CONSTRUCTION: Suarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Antonella Suarez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. INTRINSIC CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, JERRY INDUSTRIOUS, and TIJUANA GREEN, Case No. 1:26-cv-03868 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members for all hours worked, due to timeshaving, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. By failing to inform Plaintiff and Class Members of the actual hours that they worked by not providing them with accurate wage statements, Defendants were able to hide their wrongdoing, as Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware of the fact that they were being underpaid. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide any wage notices to Plaintiff or Class Members. Even if Defendants provided wage notices, the wage notices would have been inadequate as they would have failed to provide employees' actual pay rates, which were reduced by Defendants' timeshaving. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with wage notices and accurate wage statements, in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to provide Plaintiff with wage notices and accurate statements, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as an elevator operator for Defendants at their job site on March 13, 2025. The Defendants own and operate 3 deli establishments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 JONATHAN BECK: Lee Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lee v. Beck, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00660-CFC-LDH (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appoitment of class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1f5hCV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOSEPH BELANOFF: Court Stays LeRiger Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LeRiger v. Belanoff, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-03106 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 10, 2026), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order tentatively adopting the proposed schedule and stays the matter. The parties' tentative schedule in this matter contains no briefing schedule regarding class certification, the Court says. The Court shall consider lifting the day 30 days after issuance of an Order on Defendants' motion to dismiss in Allegheny County Employees Retirement System v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-1525-TLT (N.D. Cal.) (the Securities Action), or no later than April 9, 2027, whichever occurs sooner. The parties are permitted to provide the Court with a proposed schedule by no later than Monday, June 29, 2026. The nature of suit states Stockholders' suits involving securities violation.[CC] JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Portions Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bodea v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06404-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting permission to file under seal portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek permission to file under seal: (a) portions of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law ("Memorandum") in support of the Motion and (b) Exhibits 1–14 to the declaration of Michael Dell'Angelo ("Declaration") in support of the Motion. The reason for this request is that the Memorandum and Exhibits 1–14 to the Declaration quote, refer to, or are themselves documents or information that have been designated by Defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as "Confidential." JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vvE3eP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Alex B. Heller, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq. Joel M. Sweet, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com aheller@bergermontague.com rraghavan@bergermontague.com jsamuel@bergermontague.com jsweet@bergermontague.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. Emily A. Tu, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com emily.tu@blbglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jayant W. Tambe, Esq. Laura Washington Sawyer, Esq. Céalagh P. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Meredith Christian, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3939 E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com lwsawyer@jonesday.com cfitzpatrick@jonesday.com mchristian@jonesday.com JRPAC INC: Gomes Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- IGNATIOUS GOMES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated . JRPAC INC., d/b/a SPICE SYMPHONY RESTAURANT, JUDE RODRIGUES, and PREMENDRA CHOUHAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a runner/expediter at their Midtown East location from 2017 to June 2026. He regularly worked four double shifts plus an additional 1-3 dinner shifts per week for Defendants. The Defendant is a New York corporation that owns and operates two Spice Symphony restaurants located in Times Square and Midtown East, New York City. Premendra Chouhan is an active owner of Spice Symphony.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 KATHARINE SURKIN: Plaintiffs Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER; ANDRE DE GRUY; and JENNIFER MORGAN, BRENDA LOCKE, and A. ARMAN MIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KATHARINE SURKIN, DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, in her official capacity, Case No. 3:26-cv-00458-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a class defined as: "all attorneys who currently represent or will represent clients in Youth Court cases in Mississippi." The grounds for this motion are set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law and supporting exhibits, which include: Exhibit 1 – Declaration of Elizabeth Rossi Exhibit 2 – Proposed Order Granting Class Certification Katharine Surkin is the director of the administrative office of the courts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vww0PD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Graham P. Carner, Esq. Spencer Cash, Esq. CARNER & ROSEMON, PLLC 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 218 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 427-8999 Facsimile: (769) 233-8941 E-mail: graham@carnerrosemon.com spencer@carnerrosemon.com - and - Elizabeth Rossi, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (410) 935-3758 Facsimile: (202) 410-8938 E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org - and - Jaqueline Aranda Osorno, Esq. Ana Builes, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 221-8495 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: jaosorno@publicjustice.net abuiles@publicjustice.net KENTUCKY: Court Won't Issue TRO Against Bill 185 ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Samantha Wigginton, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-035-CHB (E.D. Ky.), Judge Claria Horn Boom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to block implementation of Kentucky Senate Bill 185, the legislation restructuring Kentucky State University. Kentucky State University serves as Kentucky's 1890 land-grant institution and the Commonwealth's only public Historically Black College or University. The school has faced significant operational, financial, and accreditation difficulties in recent years. During the 2026 legislative session, Kentucky's General Assembly passed SB 185, which declares a state of financial exigency at KSU, redefines the university as a four-year polytechnic institute, caps academic areas of study at ten, requires CPE approval of certain expenditures, authorizes personnel terminations, it also requires CPE to approve obligations or expenditures of $20,000 or more and bars enrollment for individuals owing KSU more than $1,000 for over 60 days. Governor Andy Beshear signed the bill on April 13, 2026. Plaintiffs, current and former KSU students, initiated this putative class action on May 11, 2026, on behalf of similarly situated current students, alumni, prospective students, and admitted students. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action, including intentional discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, equal protection claims under United States v. Fordice and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., and related statutory and state-law claims. Plaintiffs relied on the first three counts to support the requested temporary restraining order, arguing SB 185 perpetuates vestiges of Kentucky's de jure segregation era through underfunding and a narrowed university mission. The court found Plaintiffs likely to establish Article III standing, citing similar HBCU litigation holding that diminished educational opportunities traceable to state funding and mission policies constitute a cognizable injury. However, on the merits, the court found Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Fordice's traceability prong. Plaintiffs relied on a 2023 federal letter alleging a $172,135,168 funding shortfall over thirty years, but the letter provided no underlying data or methodology and did not address a 2009 Office for Civil Rights report finding that KSU received more public funding per student than any of Kentucky's five other comprehensive universities and that Kentucky was then in full compliance with Title VI. The court also found Plaintiffs failed to show that SB 185's mission or programming changes were rooted in policies from the de jure era, noting the liberal studies language Plaintiffs sought to preserve was not added to Kentucky law until 1982, decades after desegregation. On the separate Arlington Heights claim, the court found Plaintiffs' discriminatory-intent arguments undeveloped, offering little beyond a citation to the case, and concluded Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on that theory as well. The court further held that, even assuming a likelihood of success, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. SB 185 requires teach-out plans for any closed program, does not itself eliminate any program, and expressly requires KSU to abide by all SACSCOC accreditation instructions. The court rejected Plaintiffs' program-related, accreditation-related, mission-related, and uncertainty-based harm theories as speculative or unsubstantiated on the current record, and declined to consider an undeveloped due-process argument concerning SB 185's debt-related enrollment provisions. Because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, the court did not extensively address the balance-of-hardships or public-interest factors, though it found those factors also favored denial. The court accordingly denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered the parties to file a Joint Status Report by July 8, 2026, addressing whether Plaintiffs continue to seek a preliminary injunction, any proposed limited-discovery plan, a proposed briefing schedule, and potential hearing dates. A copy of the Court's decision dated 29th of June, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VVxj43 from PacerMonitor.com KRISTI NOEM: E.M.P.C. Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Bid Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.M.P.C., et al., v. NOEM, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-21565-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Yeney Hernandez entered an order denying E.M.P.C. Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Motion incorporates none of the significant changes to E.M.P.C. Plaintiffs' proposed class definition, claims, or arguments. And the Motion still defines the proposed class by reference to a policy E.M.P.C. Plaintiffs are no longer even challenging. Thus, the Motion, which proposes an abandoned class definition and advances arguments that have been superseded, should be denied as moot. Under Magistrate Rule 4(b), the parties have 14 days from the date of this Report and Recommendation to serve and file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the report and bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. Because the Motion does not address the operative class or the operative issues in the case, the Court recommends that the Motion be denied as moot. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on March 9, 2026, asserting claims under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), the Cuban Adjustment Act ("CAA"), and the Fifth Amendment. Noem is an American politician who served as the eighth United States secretary of homeland security from 2025 to 2026. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qwclrt at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Los Angeles Press Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB et al., v. KRISTI NOEM et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05563-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class defined as: "All people who do or will, without using force or threat of force, record [or photograph] Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") immigration enforcement and removal operations or protests of those operations in this District since June 6, 2025." The Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown for present purposes that the Defendants have a policy of treating the recording of their agents as an unlawful threat that may be responded to with force. The class is undoubtedly numerous, and the proposed class representatives and class counsel are more than adequate. The Plaintiffs initiated this action in June 2025. On Oct. 16, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, asserting claims on behalf of several putative classes for First Amendment right of access and retaliation, Fourth and Fifth Amendment excessive force, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Kristi Noem is an American politician who served as the eighth United States secretary of homeland security from 2025 to 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RztFMd at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Class Settlement in Kirkbride Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Marbley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. -- The Court preliminarily certifies, for the purposes of settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All individuals in the United States and its territories who, at any point in time during the Settlement Class Period, paid in whole or in part for one or more prescription drugs from Kroger using their insurance." The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) any Judge presiding over any portion of this Action, including appeals, and immediate members of the Judges' families, and any members of the Judges' respective staffs (but not members of the immediate families of judicial staff); (2) officers and directors of Kroger, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, affiliates, and any entity in which Kroger has a controlling interest; (3) individuals who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (4) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded individuals; and (5) all individuals that have sued (other than through this Action), filed an arbitration demand, or participated in a settlement in a suit against Kroger relating to its determination of usual and customary prices in connection with the Savings Club (this exclusion from the Settlement Class does not apply to individuals that have voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice in any suit or arbitration). -- The Court preliminarily appoints Judy Kirkbride and Beeta Lewis as representatives of the Settlement Class. -- The Court preliminarily appoints the law firms of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Arisohn LLC, and Smith Krivoshey, PC to serve as Class Counsel. -- The Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on Jan. 11, 2027, at 10 a.m. The Defendant operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tfW7af at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (917) 656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (415) 202-6109 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com The Defendant is represented by: Selina Coleman, Esq. Michael Scott Leib, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 1000 – East Tower Washington, DC 20005-3373 E-mail: mleib@reedsmith.com KROGER CO: Settlement Deal in Kirkbride Gets Initial nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Marbley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. -- Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies, for the purposes of settlement only, the following Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement: "All individuals in the United States and its territories who, at any point in time during the Settlement Class Period, paid in whole or in part for one or more prescription drugs from Kroger using their insurance." The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) any Judge presiding over any portion of this Action, including appeals, and immediate members of the Judges' families, and any members of the Judges' respective staffs (but not members of the immediate families of judicial staff); (2) officers and directors of Kroger, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, affiliates, and any entity in which Kroger has a controlling interest; (3) individuals who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (4) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded individuals; and (5) all individuals that have sued (other than through this Action), filed an arbitration demand, or participated in a settlement in a suit against Kroger relating to its determination of usual and customary prices in connection with the Savings Club (this exclusion from the Settlement Class does not apply to individuals that have voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice in any suit or arbitration). -- The Court preliminarily appoints Judy Kirkbride and Beeta Lewis as representatives of the Settlement Class. -- The Court preliminarily appoints the law firms of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Arisohn LLC, and Smith Krivoshey, PC to serve as Class Counsel. -- The Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on Jan. 11, 2027, at 10 a.m. Under the Agreement, the Defendants are obligated to pay Settlement Class Members via a non-reversionary, all-cash common fund in the amount of $17,000,000. The Defendant operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jrzhoZ at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Matthews Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garry Matthews et al., v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02944-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on June 26, 2026 at 8:15 a.m., will move the Court for an order to extend the deadline to file motion for class certification by 30 Days and Other Dates. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the documents filed in support of the ex parte application including the accompanying declaration of the Plaintiffs' counsel William Claiborne, all records and papers on file in this action, and any evidence or oral argument offered at any hearing on this motion. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zg7Wij at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jovan Blacknell, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. BLACKNELL 200 Corporate Pointe, Suite 495 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 469-9117 Facsimile: (310) 388-3765 E-mail: jovan@fight4justice.com - and - William Claiborne, Esq. CLAIBORNE LAW 717 D Street N.W., Ste 300 Washington, DC 20004-2815 Telephone: (202) 824-0700 E-mail: claibornelaw@gmail.com LULULEMON USA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZEINAB ALSAADY and ABRAHAM KAZAN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LULULEMON USA, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05708-DWC (W.D. Wash., June 30, 2026), seeks a judgment requiring Lululemon to disgorge and return to the Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes all unlawful tariff-related overcharges passed through to consumers in the form of increased prices, together with interest. Allegedly, Lululemon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs from Plaintiffs and other consumers by raising prices on imported goods while tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), remained in effect. At minimum, once IEEPA tariff refunds, reliquidation, or other recovery became available, Lululemon’s retention of tariff-related amounts paid by consumers became unfair, oppressive, and substantially injurious because Lululemon retained the benefit of both consumer pass-through payments and the corresponding refund rights or proceeds. Lululemon's decision to retain both the tariff-related price increases charged to consumers and any tariff refunds it may recover serves its own commercial interests at the direct expense of Plaintiffs and consumers. In short, Lululemon generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Lululemon -- are the ones left paying for it. The Plaintiffs and consumers, who bear all or a substantial portion of the tariff burden, lack standing and any statutory cause of action in the Court of International Trade to recover unlawfully collected tariffs. Instead, federal law grants that right exclusively to the importer of record, regardless of who ultimately bore the economic burden. As a result, corporations that passed tariff costs onto consumers remain entitled to recover refunds from the federal government for tariffs later determined to be unlawful, while consumers are left without compensation for the overcharges they paid, the suit alleges. Lululemon USA offers athletic apparel, footwear, and accessories for yoga, running, training, and other activities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Dana Abelson, Esq. Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com dana.abelson@hbsslaw.com christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 609-3733 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com MARYLAND: Palmer Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIEN PALMER, et al., v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Austin entered a judgment that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted with the amendments to the class definitions. Accordingly, the Court finds that all Rule 23(a)and 23(b)(3) conditions for class certification are met. The Court will certify a general class of: "all individuals detained at Central Booking for more than 2.5 hours after the RS Time following an order for their release." In addition, the Court will certify subclasses with the following amendments: Subclass A (previously B): "Class Members detained for more than 2.5 hours, but equal to or less than 3 hours, after the RS Time." [1,226 detentions] Subclass B (previously C): "Class Members detained for more than 3 hours, but equal to or less than 3.5 hours, after the RS Time." [1,072 detentions] Subclass C (previously D): "Class Members detained for more than 3.5 hours, but equal to or less than 4 hours, after the RS Time." [1,226 detentions] Subclass D (previously E): "Class Members detained longer than 4 hours after the RS Time." [9,806 detentions]. If adjustment to these definitions becomes necessary for any legal, administrative, or other reason, the Court may revisit these definitions. Four individuals filed this putative class action against the State of Maryland, two of its agencies, and an individual employee on behalf of individuals who were, allegedly, unconstitutionally overdetained at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center after a commissioner or court ordered their release. Maryland is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions of the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0IOs8 at no extra charge.[CC] MONSTER RESERVATIONS: Misclassifies & Underpays Workers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JARED G. JACOBUS, also known as Julie O'Floinn, v. MONSTER RESERVATIONS GROUP, LLC; MACK DADDY CONSULTANT INC. d/b/a EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLC;GDR TRADESHOW TRAVELCO.COM; VACATION MANAGEMENT LLC; A1 EXCURSIONS LLC;CHEAP RESORT STAYS LLC; SUN SEPTIC PRODUCTS LLCCANDREW FENDERBOSCH;SIDNEY J. W HITE a/k/a JAY W HITE; DANIEL METZ; JOSH STOWE; SCOTT W EISS;STEVE MAHER; and JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 9:26-cv-80779-RMM (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2026) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other workers who were similarly misclassified and underpaid by the Defendants. The Plaintiff worked at five different call centers that were part of a single, integrated enterprise engaged in the business of selling vacation packages and related services under the Monster Reservations Group brand. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor when she was, in fact, an employee. She was paid below the Florida minimum wage and was not paid ovedime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants used a Iong-dissolved entity, Executive Management Padners LLC (dissolved in 2005), to issue payroll checks to Plaintiff in 2023 through a company controlled by Karen R. Lichtman. This repeated use of a defunct entity to pay workers is strong evidence of willfulness, the Plaintiff contends. Monster offers vacation destinations in the US, Caribbean, and Mexico. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] MSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces MCRHC Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- MSC Industrial Direct Co. Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action filed by Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund (MCRHC) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on March 14, 2025, against the company and certain officers, directors, and shareholders. In June 2025, MCRHC filed an amended complaint purportedly brought by MCRHC individually and on behalf of others similarly situated as a class action or, in the alternative, as a derivative action on behalf of the Company. The amended complaint also asserts a breach of contract claim against the company and alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties for actions related to the Reclassification, and seeks damages, recovery of costs and expenses, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On November 14, 2025, the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied. On February 20, 2026, it filed an appeal of the trial court's decision with respect to its motion to dismiss. Separately, the Macomb Litigation is also pleaded, in the alternative, as a derivative action on behalf of the company. MCRHC purports to bring the action derivatively for the benefit of the company, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers, directors, and shareholders in connection with the Reclassification. The amended complaint, to the extent it proceeds on a derivative basis, seeks damages, recovery of costs and expenses, and such other relief as the court may deem proper on behalf of the company. MSC Industrial Direct Co Inc is a distributor of metalworking and maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) supplies to industrial customers throughout North America. The Company provides products and inventory management services to manufacturers and other industrial users across a range of end markets.through stores, outlets, and digital channels. MY GOALS: Brent Must File Class Cert Bid by July 30 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brent v. My Goals Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03584 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order granting Letter Motion for Extension of Time: Expert discovery shall be completed by July 30, 2026. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or by July 30, 2026. Defendant's opposition shall be filed on or by August 31, 2026. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or by September 28, 2026. The parties shall file a joint status letter within seven days of the close of expert discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. My Goals is a New York-based medical management company.[CC] NATIONAL TENANT: Settlement Deal in Clermont Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vanessa Clermont, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. National Tenant Network, Inc.; and LCIJ, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, as falling within the range of possible final approval, and as meriting notice of the Settlement to persons in the Class for their consideration and a hearing on the approval of the Settlement. 2. A final approval hearing shall be held before this Court on Dec. 8, 2026. 3. The Court approves, as to form and content, the use of a Claim Form, Long Form Notice, and Short Form/Postcard Notice, substantially similar to the forms attached as Exhibits A, B, and D to the Settlement Agreement, respectively. National provides resident screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ZEr9E at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK CITY: Wins Bid to Keep Juvenile Cavity Inspections ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as D.P., individually and as parent and natural guardian of John Doe 1, and John Doe 2, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 26 Civ. 4745 (JHR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer H. Rearden of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order challenging strip search and visual body cavity inspection policies at two juvenile detention facilities. The Administration for Children's Services operates two secure detention facilities, Crossroads Juvenile Center and Horizon Juvenile Center, housing 374 juveniles as of June 8, 2026. Seventy-five percent of residents were held on homicide-related offenses, and contraband, including ceramic blades not detectable by metal detectors, was discovered regularly. Plaintiffs alleged that ACS policy mandated strip searches and visual body cavity inspections without individualized suspicion following counsel visits, virtual visits, family visits, and returns from court, in violation of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs filed suit on June 5, 2026 and sought emergency injunctive relief. A series of limited temporary restraining orders were issued and later denied regarding specific court appearances for John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. On June 15, 2026, Plaintiffs narrowed their TRO request to four categories of searches, absent reasonable suspicion: (1) strip searches and visual body cavity inspections after counsel visits; (2) strip searches and visual body cavity inspections after virtual visits; (3) visual body cavity inspections after family visits; and (4) visual body cavity inspections upon return from cour Plaintiffs argued for the lower fair ground for litigation standard, while Defendants argued for a heightened "clear or substantial likelihood of success" standard. The Court rejected both. Because the requested injunction was prohibitory rather than mandatory, the Court applied the ordinary "likelihood of success on the merits" standard. The Court held that Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, rather than N.G. v. Connecticut, governed the analysis. N.G. predated Florence and involved juveniles held for status offenses such as truancy, not individuals facing serious criminal charges. Accordingly, the Court evaluated whether the challenged searches were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, the standard articulated in Turner v. Safley. Regarding scope of intrusion, the Court found that Defendants demonstrated a pressing institutional need for the searches, noting that strip searches and visual cavity inspections are the only means to detect non-metallic contraband concealed in body cavities. Plaintiffs did not show that Defendants exaggerated their response to security concerns. Regarding searches connected to court appearances, the Court found that detainees are held in communal pens and interact with other detainees, court staff, and the public while at court, creating opportunities for contraband exchange. A ceramic blade was found on John Doe 2 just before a court appearance on May 28, 2026. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on this claim. Regarding contact visits, the Court held that strip searches following contact visits are well established as reasonably related to legitimate security concerns, citing Block v. Rutherford. Defendants were not required to show specific instances of contraband exchanged during counsel or family visits to justify the policy. Regarding virtual visits, the Court found that these visits occur in a shared area used by all youth, and that ACS has found metal monitor brackets and other dangerous contraband following virtual visits. Plaintiffs did not show that Defendants exaggerated their response to this risk. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding any of the four categories of challenged searches. Because Plaintiffs did not meet this threshold, the Court did not address irreparable harm or the public interest. Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the underlying motion. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter proposing next steps by July 6, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/WA3JT3Y/DP_the_parent_and_natural_guardian_v_THE_CITY_OF_NEW_YORK_et_al__nysdce-26-04745__0064.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA from PacerMonitor.com NEW YORK, NY: Jefferson Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jefferson v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07212-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) certifying as a class action on behalf of the following proposed Class: "All persons who were arrested, prosecuted, and/or imprisoned based upon evidence fabricated and which denied them due process of law, violative of the New York State and the United States Constitutions These convictions were subsequently vacated by Orders of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, including but not limited to the approximately 350 individuals identified in the Bronx District Attorney's Conviction Integrity Bureau appendix and unsealed by Orders of this Court (the "Class")"; (2) certifying four proposed Subclasses: Subclass A (approximately 190 members with arrest-to-arraignment damages only); Subclass B (approximately 13 members sentenced to probation); Subclass C (approximately 70 members who served terms of incarceration); and Subclass D (approximately 77 members who were incarcerated and sentenced to parole); (3) appointing Rosina Feliciano as Class Representative; and (4) appointing Rudy Velez, Esq., of the Law Office of Rudy Velez & Associates as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qfHcXu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rudy Velez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RUDY VELEZ & ASSOCIATES 930 Grand Concourse, Suite 1A Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (917) 675-0573 E-mail: rvesq@yahoo.com NEW YORK, NY: Phillips Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Phillips, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08149-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an Order: 1. Certifying a class, pursuant to Rule 23, consisting of the following definition, or such appropriate variation or modification thereof as the Court deems appropriate: a. All persons; b. Who have been jailed by the City; c. Whose continued detention is premised solely on the existence of a warrant bearing their name; d. Where that warrant contains language requiring production to a court "without unnecessary delay"; e. Who NYPD, DOC, or another City actor (1) did not bring to court for an appearance on the warrant before detention on the warrant, or (2) otherwise failed to produce that person to court for an appearance on the warrant "without unnecessary delay" after detention; and f. Who fit into one or both Subclasses described below. i. State Law Subclass: "All members of the Class whose incarceration is ongoing, or ended within the year and 90 days — plus any tolling time provided by Executive Order No. 202.8 and its various extensions — prior to the filing of the motion for leave to file the First Amended Class Action Complaint." ii. section 1983 Subclass: "All members of the Class whose incarceration is ongoing, or ended within the three years — plus any tolling time provided by Executive Order No. 202.8 and its various extensions — prior to the filing of the motion for leave to file the First Amended Class Action Complaint." 2. Appointing Paul Phillips and Khaori Wright as class representatives. 3. Appointing Cohen&Green P.L.L.C., Gideon Orion Oliver, and Kaishian & Mortazavi LLC as class counsel. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0pFbsu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Remy Green, Esq. COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C. 1639 Centre St., Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 Telephone: (929) 888-9480 Facsimile: (929) 888-9457 E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com NOVO NORDISK: Court Tosses TDF Selection Claims in 401(k) Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Fumich, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-9158 (ZNQ)(JBD) (D.N.J.), Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and struck a newly added claim in an Opinion issued June 24, 2026. The lawsuit, a putative class action brought under ERISA, centers on the alleged mismanagement of Novo Nordisk's 401(k) Savings Plan. Plaintiffs John Fumich, Laura Mischley, Raphael Hinton, Ronnie McLean, and Thomas Chaffin alleged that the Novo Nordisk Inc. Retirement Committee acted imprudently by selecting and retaining Schwab Managed Retirement Target Date Funds for the Plan, and that Novo Nordisk and its Board failed to monitor the Retirement Committee's performance of that duty. Plaintiffs further alleged that Defendants engaged in a prohibited transaction by contracting with Schwab for recordkeeping and administrative services, and separately alleged that the Retirement Committee failed to control the costs of those services. Plaintiffs initially filed a class action complaint in September 2024, asserting four causes of action. The Court granted Defendants' first motion to dismiss in August 2025, dismissing all four counts to the extent they rested on the selection of the Schwab funds, but permitting the portion of the prudence claim and the failure-to-monitor claim concerning excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees to proceed. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint limited to curing the defects it had identified. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in September 2025 that reasserted the fund-selection theory and added a new prohibited-transaction claim. Defendants then filed the consolidated motion to dismiss and motion to strike now before the Court. Reviewing the fund-selection theory, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to identify a meaningful benchmark against which to measure the Retirement Committee's conduct. The funds Plaintiffs offered as comparators, including series from T. Rowe Price, American Funds, Callan GlidePath, and MFS Lifetime, were entirely actively managed, while the Schwab funds combined active and passive management, a distinction courts have repeatedly held defeats comparability. The comparator funds also carried materially different fixed-income allocations than the Schwab funds, ranging from roughly 6.71 to 16.87 percentage points apart, further undermining their use as benchmarks. Even treating the comparator funds as valid benchmarks, the Court found the alleged underperformance, generally under three percent and often under one percent, too slight to plausibly support an inference of imprudence, consistent with rulings in similar cases from other districts. The Court therefore dismissed the prudence claim to the extent it rested on the selection and retention of the Schwab funds, without addressing the separate, unchallenged portion of that claim concerning recordkeeping and administrative fees. Because the failure-to-monitor claim against Novo Nordisk and its Board was derivative of the prudence claim, the Court dismissed it on the same basis, to the extent it relied on the fund-selection theory. On the motion to strike, the Court agreed with Defendants that the newly added prohibited-transaction claim exceeded the scope of the leave to amend previously granted, which had been limited to addressing the specific pleading defects identified in the Court's prior Opinion. The Court exercised its discretion to strike that claim under Rule 12(f), doing so without prejudice to Plaintiffs' ability to seek leave to add it properly. The Court granted Defendants' motion without prejudice, dismissing the prudence and monitoring claims to the extent based on the selection of the Schwab funds and striking the prohibited-transaction claim from the Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's decision dated June 24, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vUkOlP from PacerMonitor.com OILCREEK GENERAL: Hamel Seeks to Certify Proposed Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAAC HAMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OILCREEK GENERAL PARTNER, LLC, an Oklahoma company, and OILCREEK OSWEGO PROGRAM, LP, an Oklahoma company, Case No. 5:25-cv-00918-G (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the proposed class Pre-recorded No Consent Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint through the date of class certification, (1) the Defendants called on their cellular telephone number (2) using an artificial or pre-recorded voice." (2) appointing Isaac Hamel to serve as the class representative; (3) appointing Avi Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and Stefan Coleman of Coleman PLLC to serve as class counsel; and (4) directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a reasonable time. Class certification is warranted because the central and determinative issues will all be resolved based on common, class wide proof, including documents, data, and testimony from Defendants, and without regard for the experiences of individual class members. Oilcreek sells investment interests in oil and gas ventures in Oklahoma. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oei3wV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Roper ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THELMA ROPER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, & STILLMAN, P.C. (d/b/a STILLMAN LAW FIRM), Case No. 8:23-cv-02112-BAH (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a sur-reply addressing the issue discussed in this Motion, or, in the alternative, striking or declining to consider any argument in the Plaintiff's reply that relies upon allegations of harm from the publication of private information. The Defendants should be allowed to respond to this new allegation. This motion for leave to file a sur-reply seeks only that—an opportunity to respond to a single argument, made for the first time in a Reply. If the Court denies the Defendants leave to file a sur-reply, it should decline to consider any of the Plaintiff's arguments and allegations that class members suffered an injury because of the publication of their private information. On May 15, 2026, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The Defendants filed their response in opposition on May 29, 2026. Oliphant is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JjM0aY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq. MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN PLLC Northpark Central, Suite 1850 8750 North Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 346-2630 Facsimile: (214) 346-2631 E-mail: xmartin@mgl.law PACIFIC MARITIME: Fowler Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY FOWLER, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION ET AL, Case No. 2:24-cv-00974-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The injunctive remedy sought undoubtedly applies to the entirety of the proposed Plaintiff class. The Defendant PMA allegedly has refused to include paid sick leave as a benefit it administers, and this lack of sick leave applies generally to the proposed Plaintiff class, because none of the Dockworkers received paid sick leave. The Court has already dismissed the Defendants' arguments about standing and individualized calculations and again does so here, for the same reasons. Therefore, the Court finds that a Rule 23(b)(2) class may be certified for the purpose of seeking injunctive relief against Defendant PMA. The Amended Complaint defines the Plaintiff classes as follows: Longshore Class: "All hourly-paid non-exempt longshore, clerk, container freight station longshore/clerk utilitymen, walking boss/foreman, and similar positions ("Longshore Workers") employed on PMA member jobsites located in the State of Washington at any time during the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint and thereafter (the "class period")." Longshore (Seattle) Subclass: "All Longshore Workers employed on PMA member jobsites located within the geographic boundaries of the City of Seattle at any time during the class period." In the Plaintiff's instant motion, he defines the Plaintiff Class as follows: "All hourly-paid employees who are covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement between ILWU and PMA and have worked on a PMA Member jobsite located in the State of Washington at any time since May 29, 2021." Pacific is a multi-employer organization that consists of "over 70 ocean carrier lines, stevedoring companies, and marine terminal operators with jobsites up and down the West Coast." A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnAmHy at no extra charge.[CC] PITNEY BOWES: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Guastella Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY L. GUASTELLA, individually, on behalf of the Pitney Bowes Inc. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Pitney Bowes Inc. 401(k) Plan v. PITNEY BOWES INC. and the EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; Case No. 3:26-cv-01043 (D. Conn., June 30, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against Pitney Bowes, and the Employee Benefits Committee, for breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act with regard to the Plan. Accordingly, the Plan fiduciaries fell well short of these strict fiduciary duties by consistently retaining the T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (the TRP Growth Stock Fund) and the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth Fund (the TRP Mid-Cap Growth Fund) for years, even though these funds have consistently proven themselves unable to beat their own chosen index benchmark, thus violating a basic investment principle by providing no expectation of additional returns in exchange for increased risk. Similarly, the TRP Growth Stock Fund and TRP Mid-Cap Growth Fund glaringly underperformed their peers under nearly all Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. If Defendants had complied with their fiduciary duties to monitor their investments, these unsuitable and underperforming investments would have been removed several years ago, says the suit. The Defendants' failure to conduct a reasonably prudent process to investigate and monitor investment options within the Plan and remove these unsuitable and underperforming investments reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by tens of millions of dollars. As a result of this imprudent activity, Plaintiff and the other Plan participants suffered between $57 million and $152 million (as to the TRP Growth Stock Fund) and between $7.9 million and $27 million (as to the TRP Mid-Cap Growth Fund) in damages over the relevant Class Period (June 30, 2020 through the date of judgment), the suit contends. The Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Connecticut and was a resident of the state of Connecticut during the entire Class Period. The Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7) and was a participant during the Class Period. Pitney is an American technology company headquartered in Shelton, Connecticut. Famous for inventing the postage meter, it provides global shipping, mailing innovation, and cross-border e-commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Healy, Esq. COWDERY, MURPHY & HEALY, LLC 280 Trumbull Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 278-5555 Facsimile: (860) 249-0012 Fax E-mail: jhealy@cmandh.com - and - Ryan M. Tucker, Esq. Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: rtucker@milberg.com arudenco@milberg.com - and - Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., No. 104 New Orleans, La. 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 E-mail: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com PORTLAND LEATHER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Lyden Due August 28 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOPER LYDEN, MARIANNE PEREZ, and HOLLY HARRIS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORTLAND LEATHER GOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; PORTLAND LEATHER GOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01835-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sagar entered an order granting the joint stipulation to set class certification briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 28, 2026 certification, and any expert reports the Plaintiff intends to use in support of class certification, to be filed and served: The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's Oct. 30, 2026 motion for class certification, and any expert reports the Defendant intends to use in opposition to class certification, to be filed and served: The Plaintiff's reply in support of class Nov. 24, 2026 certification, and any rebuttal expert reports the Plaintiff intends to use in connection with class certification, to be filed and served: Hearing on motion for class certification: Dec. 15, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The current post-certification deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order are vacated. The Parties shall submit a proposed postcertification schedule within fourteen (14) days following the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Portland specializes in handmade leather products within the fashion and accessories industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MzlyeW at no extra charge.[CC] PRESCOTT, AZ: Scheduling Conference Set for July 17 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wendy Leslie, et al., v. City of Prescott, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-08102-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Liburdi entered an order setting Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling conference is set for July 17, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. -- The parties must jointly file the joint proposed case management report with the Clerk of the Court no later than July 9, 2026. The Court further orders that the Plaintiff's counsel Jason Kelly may appear by video at the Scheduling Conference. The Court views the Scheduling Conference as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the parties under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Prescott is a city in and the county seat of Yavapai County, Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YgtN9q at no extra charge.[CC] PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calderon v. Public Partnerships, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02320 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order referring Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class certification, appointment of class counsel and class settlement to MJ Eshkenazi for decision. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Public Partnerships provides financial services. [CC] SAMBA TV: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dellasala Due Jan. 27, 2028 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE DELLASALA, et al., v. SAMBA TV, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03470-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order the following schedule: -- The Defendant's summary judgment motion on consent: Dec. 15, 2026 -- Summary judgment hearing: March 4, 2027 -- Close of fact discovery: Sept. 23, 2027 -- Class certification motion: Jan. 27, 2028 -- Class certification opposition: Feb. 29, 2028 -- Class certification reply: March 13, 2028 -- Class certification hearing: April 6, 2028 The Court will hold a further case management conference on September 30, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. The Court will be particularly interested on the status of discovery. Samba TV is a television technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JVpQE at no extra charge.[CC] SCHWARTZ FRUITS: Conditional Cert Bid in Valesquez Due July 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS ALBERTO VALESQUEZ, v. SCHWARTZ FRUITS & VEGGIES CORP., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01743-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than July 20, 2026. -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than July 9, 2026. -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than Nov. 27, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed no later than Dec. 5, 2026 . -- Any motion for summary judgment must be filed no later than Dec. 18, 2026. -- Any motion for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. § 216 shall be filed by Sept. 4, 2026. Any motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed Oct. 23, 2026. Schwartz is a New York-based corporate entity operating multiple retail grocery and marketplace locations across the city. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hBFeSV at no extra charge.[CC] SILVER CROSS: Hinton Seeks Unpaid OT, Regular Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSE HINTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SILVER CROSS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTERS, an Illinois, Case No. 1:26-cv-07684 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2026) is a collective and class action for unpaid overtime and regular wages brought by hourly paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees all earned regular and overtime pay for all time worked. The Defendant has a wage and hour policy and practice that rounds Plaintiff’s and similarly situated hourly employees' clock in and clock out times to the advantage of Defendant and to the detriment of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated hourly employees. The Defendant's time clock rounding policies and practices violate the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA and result in the underpayment of overtime and regular wages, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant's wage violations will be shown from, among other things, a comparison of the face of Defendant’s pay stubs issued to employees, and Defendant's own time records for those same employees, the suit asserts. The Defendant operates, owns, and controls a hospital in New Lenox, Illinois as well as several other satellite and urgent care facilities across Will, Grundy and Cook counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com SINGULARITY FUTURE: Court Tosses w/o Prejudice Proposed Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Singularity Future Technology Ltd. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2026, that on March 9, 2026, following a fairness hearing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied, without prejudice, the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement for a securities class action, "Crivellaro v. Singularity Future Technology Ltd., et al.," No. 22-cv-7499-BMC filed on December 9, 2022. It also denied as moot the related motions concerning attorneys fees, the escrow agreement, and the issuance of shares pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 and further ordered that the previously imposed temporary restraining order remain in effect. Said case was commenced against Singularity Future Technology Ltd. and certain other defendants in said court, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On December 17, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss filed by the company and its former Chief Executive Officer, Yang Jie. On July 13, 2025, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement, pursuant to which the parties agreed to resolve the litigation, subject to final approval by the court. Pursuant to the amended settlement agreement and subject to approval by the court, the company agreed to settle the class action for an aggregate cash settlement amount of $5,800,000, which includes the $2,000,000 previously deposited into escrow. The company agreed to deposit an additional $1,500,000 within 15 calendar days after execution of the amended settlement agreement and receipt of the necessary wire transfer information, subject to a 15-calendar-day grace period for banking or wire-processing delays not caused by the company. It also agreed to deposit the remaining $2,300,000 within 60 days after the initial payment. The amended settlement agreement provides that the settlement will be subject to court approval and, upon effectiveness, will result in the dismissal of the class action with prejudice and the mutual releases set forth therein, subject to customary exclusions. Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is a technology company focused on logistics, supply chain, and related digital infrastructure solutions, including blockchain-based and other advanced technologies. The Company develops and deploys platforms and services aimed at improving global trade, freight management, and end-to-end transportation efficiency. SSPS LLC: Boatner Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- AUTUMN BOATNER is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Autumn Boatner, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SSPS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3251, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. On June 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action. On July 29, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On Aug. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of declaration of Geoff R. Hall. On Nov. 25, 2025, Judge Dale E. Ho entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff's motion to strike is denied as moot because the Court does not rely on the Hall declaration submitted in support of the motion. In light of the Court's decision granting the motion to compel arbitration, the Affiliate Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. This matter is stayed pending arbitration. The appellate case is entitled Boatner v. SSPS, LLC, Case No. 26-1686, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AUTUMN BOATNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Ovca, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Defendants-Appellees SSPS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Reynold Lambert, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq. IFRAH LAW PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 STAR POWER: Garcia Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEIHARIK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STAR POWER MARKETING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04823-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Henry entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. The Court further orders as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall show cause no later than July 10, 2026 why her Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act claim should not be dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant shall file a response in opposition, if any, no later than July 24, 2026. 2. If the Plaintiff intends to file a renewed motion for class certification, she shall do so no later than July 24, 2026. The Defendant shall file a response in opposition no later than Aug. 7, 2026. The Defendant is a marketing and promotional company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dV120J at no extra charge.[CC] STRYKER EMPLOYMENT: Class Cert Hearing Reset to Nov. 5 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and as a representative for the State of California, v. STRYKER EMPLOYMENT COMPANY, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01411-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to modify motion for class certification briefing schedule, and expert disclosure and discovery cutoffs. The Parties shall file their respective class certification briefing according to the following briefing schedule: (1) The Plaintiff's opening brief in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Aug. 17, 2026; (2) Stryker's opposition brief shall be filed no later than 35 days after the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is filed; and (3) The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than 21 days after Stryker's opposition is filed. The Court vacates the class certification hearing date set for Oct. 1, 2026, and resets the hearing for Nov. 5, 2026, at 1:30 PM. The Court amends the April 9, 2026, Order regarding expert disclosure and discovery deadlines as follows: (1) Deadline to disclose initial experts and produce reports: Dec. 4, 2026; (2) Deadline to disclose rebuttal experts and produce reports: Jan. 4, 2027; (3) Deadline to complete expert discovery: Feb. 4, 2027. Stryker is an American multinational medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VPU2B0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Workman, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 2325 3rd St #329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 The Defendants are represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: mbeilke@seyfarth.com jtrankiem@seyfarth.com jnordlander@seyfarth.com STUBHUB INC: Faces Moghal Class Suit Over World Cup Ticket Resale ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE REEKER MOGHAL and REUBEN RENTERIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05569 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action complaint against StubHub for violations of federal, state, and common law in connection with the Defendant's misleading sales in the secondary market for World Cup 2026 Tickets in the United States during the applicable statutory period and continuing through the present day (Class Period). The 2026 World Cup is organized by FIFA, which operates as FWC2026 US, INC., a subsidiary of FIFA. The host cities, which are serve as the locations for the stadium matches across the host country or region, play a pivotal role: providing the forum for where each of the countries play their tournament games, and, ultimately, the championship match. The World Cup has taken place in North America four times throughout its nearly century of history – and fan anticipation in the United States in particular was never higher than it was and has been leading up to and including the 2026 World Cup. Unfortunately, with high anticipation comes high likelihood for taking advantage of the consumers willing to pay. The rarity of World Cup games being played in the United States means that the odds of consumers facing high prices and a difficult to navigate market were almost guaranteed. Thus, many consumers, like Plaintiffs and Class members look to StubHub as a marketplace to purchase tickets for the event on the secondary (resale) market from those who initially bought tickets from FIFA directly, says the suit. By way of background, FIFA possesses a lawful monopoly with a 100% market share over the distribution and sale of the 2026 North American World Cup tickets (World Cup Ticket) on the primary market. This is not a fact in dispute, as FIFA's own terms and conditions limit the sale of tickets in the secondary/resale market admit as much, including through StubHub, stating in relevant part: "[t]he [FIFA] Marketplace is the [World Cup's] only authorized peer-to peer marketplace platform for Tickets available to the general public. Tickets for the [World Cup] are only guaranteed to be valid when Transferred or Resold through the [FIFA] Marketplace." Tickets obtained from any third-party sources are not authorized by FIFA and may be invalid and are purchased at your risk. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Moghal paid StubHub $1,905 for three tickets to the 2026 World Cup match between Switzerland and TBD (a team to be identified later) on June 18, 2026 which would take place in Los Angeles, California at SoFi Stadium. StubHub represents itself as a seller of ticket for sporting events, concerts, theatre, and festivals.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. Allen Neumark, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC RXR Plaza 626 RexCorp Plaza, Suite 605 Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com allen.neumark@yagmanpllc.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN ABBOTT, et al., v. TICKETMASTER, LLC; and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-10757-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Defendants to produce June 29, 2026 transaction data to Abbott Plaintiffs: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file July 20, 2026 amended complaint and add class representatives: Deadline to respond to amended complaint: Sept. 4, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Nov. 16, 2026 renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Jan. 11, 2027 opposition to renewed motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Feb. 8, 2027 reply in support of renewed motion for class certification: Hearing on renewed motion for class Feb. 22, 2027, certification: at 8:30 a.m. Ticketmaster is an American ticket sales and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mzggfL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brandon D. Fox, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. Kristen L. Green, Esq. Sarah S. Lee, Esq. Alison I. Stein, Esq. Cayman C. Mitchell, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 E-mail: BFox@jenner.com ASmith@jenner.com KGreen@jenner.com SLee@jenner.com AStein@jenner.com CMitchell@jenner.com TODD BLANCHE: Coe Wins Provisional Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARTER COE, by and through his parent and next friend, CAROLINE COE; et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, v. TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-04641-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Failla entered an order granting the emergency motion of the Plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order and provisional class certification. The Court orders as follows: 1) The Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order and provisional class certification are granted because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue relief; 2) Preliminary relief is appropriate on a class-wide basis for the following Class and NYU Subclass: a. The Class: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at a healthcare institution located in New York City, including NYU Langone Hospitals (and any other NYU entity) and Mount Sinai Health System." b. The NYU Subclass: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at NYU Langone Hospitals or any other NYU entity." 5) The security requirement is waived because the Defendants will not suffer any costs from the preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs are suing the government to vindicate constitutional rights, and imposing a security requirement would pose a hardship for the Plaintiffs. Todd Blanche is an American attorney and former prosecutor. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=doFP8P at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Brown, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01672-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Deadline Filing July 10, 2026 Defendants' motion to disregard and for leave to file a sur-reply July 21, 2026 Parties' supplemental memoranda to address cases published after the case was stayed July 31, 2026 The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' motion to disregard and leave to file a sur-reply Aug. 14, 2026 The Defendants reply in support of motion to disregard and for leave to file a surreply United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MESNK8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 (404) 205-8400 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Douglas Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com - and - Erin M. Riley Jeffrey Lewis KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com jlewis@kellerrohrback.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily S. Costin, Esq. David R. Godofsky, Esq. R. Blake Crohan, Esq. Michelle Jackson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 950 F. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1404 Telephone: (202) 239-3300 Facsimile: (202) 239-3333 E-mail: emily.costin@alston.com david.godofsky@alston.com Blake.crohan@alston.com Michelle.jackson@alston.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Kingdom Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD TRUMP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Alishea Kingdom, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald Trump, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violation. On Apr. 29, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend preliminary injunction, which Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted on May 26, 2026. On June 17, 2026, Judge Lamberth entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants, their contractors, employees, and agents are enjoined (1) from enforcing Program Statement 5260.01, and (2) are ordered to provide the Plaintiffs and class members gender-affirming care in accordance with Bureau of Prisons policy and practice in effect immediately prior to the issuance of the Executive Order on Jan. 20, 2025. Additionally, Program Statement 5260.01 is stayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 705. The appellate case is styled as Alishea Kingdom, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 26-5236, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on June 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellees ALISHEA SOPHIA KINGDOM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Krevans Perloff, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Soumare Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ousmane SOUMARE, et al., v. John E. RIFE, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director, Philadelphia Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-04332-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Civil Rule") 23(a) and (b)(2). The proposed class is defined as follows: (1) All noncitizens subject to re-arrest or re-detention by the Philadelphia ICE Field Office; (2) who have been or will be released from DHS custody; (3) are in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C section 1229a, including any section 1229a proceedings that have been dismissed where the dismissal is not administratively final; and (4) are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section1226(c). The lawsuit seeks vacatur of the Defendants' rescission of its policy prohibiting re-detention of previously released noncitizens absent a change in circumstances under 5 U.S.C. section 706, thus is well-suited to class wide relief under Civil Rule 23(b)(2), the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint the undersigned law firms and nonprofits to serve as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pTPKFl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Grogan, Esq. David Nagdeman, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 320-5662 E-mail: jgrogan@langergrogan.com dnagdeman@langergrogan.com - and - Anthony Enriquez, Esq. Sarah T. Gillman, Esq. Sarah E. Decker, Esq. ROBERT & ETHEL KENNEDY HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER 88 Pine Street, Suite 801 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (917) 941-9141 E-mail: enriquez@kennedyhumanrights.org gillman@kennedyhumanrights.org decker@kennedyhumanright.org - and - Vanessa L. Stine, Esq. Witold J. Walczak, Esq. Ali Szemanski, Esq. Keith Armstrong, Esq. Victoria Peña-Parr, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 E-mail: vstine@aclupa.org karmstrong@aclupa.org vpena-parr@aclupa.org vwalczak@aclupa.org aszemanski@aclupa.org - and - Martha E. Guarnieri, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. Samantha Braver HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 230 S. Broad Street, 17th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 422-3478 E-mail: mguarnieri@hfajustice.com mhandley@hfajustice.com rnadas@hfajustice.com sbraver@hfajustice.com WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 30, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quiriconi et al., v. WestRock Longview LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05977 (W.D. Wash., Filed Nov. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order adopting the parties proposed briefing schedule as set forth in31 Joint Status Report. Close of Class-Certification Discovery is March 22, 2027 Deadline for Private or Judicial Mediation is Feb. 19, 2027 Disclosure of Affirmative Class-Certification Expert Witnesses is April 16, 2027. Close of Expert Class-Certification Discovery is May 3, 2027 Disclosure of Rebuttal Class-Certification Expert Witnesses and Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery is June 14, 2027 Deadline for Class-Certification Expert Depositions is July 26, 2027 Deadline for Motion for Class-Certification is Aug. 30, 2027 Deadline for WestRock's Opposition to Class Certification is Sept. 13, 2027 Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification is Oct. 14, 2027. The parties will meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's Order on class certification regarding additional scheduling deadlines. (MET) The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. Westrock manufactures packaging products for the paper-based packaging industry.[CC] WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Court Tosses Rowland Complaint -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROWLAND and CURTIS DIJON FISHER, v. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, III, Case No. 1:25-cv-01035-BKS-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sannes entered an order that the recommendation in Magistrate Judge Evangelista's in Report and Recommendation (R & R) to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim is granted. The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that the Clerk shall issue a judgment and close the case. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiffs in accordance with the Local Rules. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Evangelista's recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice because there are no facts suggesting that Defendant Montgomery, who appears to have been performing the traditional functions as legal counsel to the Plaintiffs, was acting under color of state law, and any amendment would be futile. The Court accordingly adopts the Report-Recommendation to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs John Rowland and Curtis Dijon Fisher brought this action pro se asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Defendant William Montgomery, III. A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3q70tk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. XSOLIS INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Longoria Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GIGI MICHELLE LONGORIA, NOAH JENSEN and JOSEPH RAMIREZ on behalf of his minor child, J.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XSOLIS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn., June 30, 2026) arises out of Xsolis's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class members' sensitive information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. On January 22, 2026, a known cybercriminal gang, claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Xsolis, during which the cybercriminals were able to access and exfiltrate the Private Information of potentially 1.4 million patients that Xsolis managed (the Data Breach). Entities that provide services and handle patients' sensitive personal information owe a duty to the individuals to whom that data relates. This duty arises because it is foreseeable that the exposure of patients' Private Information to unauthorized persons, especially hackers with nefarious intentions, will result in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their private financial and health-related matters. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on affirmative representations to Plaintiffs and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. Xsolis, Inc. provides AI-driven healthcare technology solutions for providers and payers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephpone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/7zwzutmb ********* 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 ***