260713.mbx

260713.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 138 Headlines ABM AVIATION: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cocom Reversed on Appeal ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Castillo Can File Renewed Conditional Cert AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Seal Additional Class Certification AMAZON.COM: Must Oppose Vincenzetti Class Cert Bid by July 17 ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ASSURED HEALTH: Elliott Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages BLOCK INC: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply BLUEPEARL CALIFORNIA: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. California BNY MELLON: Bid for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal OK'd CALVADO CARE: Parties in Sizemore Must Select Mediator by July 22 CHICAGO: Declaratory Judgment Dismissal in Solano Upheld COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Hearing in Barnes Suit Moved to Oct. 9 COCA-COLA CO: Must Oppose Barnes Class Cert Bid by August 5 COCA-COLA CO: Palmer Seeks to File Certain Documents Under Seal COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid in Miller Reset to Sept. 25 COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Miller Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DAVID PEYSER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Samaduroff Due May 19, 2027 DESERT PALMS: Attorney Fee Award to Former Counsel in Boyce Flipped DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Filing in Walker Continued to July 15 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid in Brown Due August 17 DOLA HAIR: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Debose-Jakcson DREAM GAMES: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by April 23, 2027 ECONOMY PREFERRED: Miller Must File Supplement Brief by July 17 EDITION MANAGEMENT: Pratt Suit Removed to C.D. California EUROPEAN WAX CENTER: Maxey Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging FREEWAY INSURANCE: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 20 GARRISON INVT: Messer Alter Ego/Veil-Piercing Suit Dismissal Upheld GONSALVES & SANTUCCI: Beltran Suit Removed to N.D. California GOODVETS VETERINARY: Scheduling Conference Set for August 11 GOOGLE LLC: Fennessy Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Facial Data GOPHER RESOURCE: Evans Suit Removed to D. Minnesota GREENSKY LLC: Loses Appeal on Nov. 7, 2025 Letter Order HARTFORD, CT: Settlement Class in Wright Gets Certification HEAVENLY FINEST: Must Pay Unpaid Wages, Interest in "Velasquez" HIGHMARK INC: Loses Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Mollinea" HRB TAX: Loses Bid to Keep Data Breach Suit in Federal Court INTERSTATE-RIM: Court Stays Host Suit Pending Arbitration Ruling JACOB OLIVA: Class Cert. Bid Filling Due July 23 JCRB INC: Blanco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Court Dismisses Lucy Suit w/o Prejudice JOSEPH ROYBAL: Kean Bid to Certify Class Tossed JOSEPH ROYBALL: Amended Prisoner Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice KAISER FOUNDATION: Culbert Seeks Class Action Certification KAMCO INDUSTRIES: Burgess Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KERZNER MONTANA: Swain Sues Over Unpaid Compensation KING FRESH SEAFOOD: Feng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. KURA SUSHI: Settlement Reached in PAGA Wage Class Suit LITTLE CAESAR: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Hearing LOS ANGELES TIMES: Class Settlement in Mirmalek Gets Final Approval LRS HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Denial in Barnes Wage Suit Affirmed LUCERO AG SERVICES: Ortiz Suit Seeks Class Certification LUCERO AG: Class Cert Hearing in Ortiz Set for Sept. 11 MARSDEN CENTRAL: Belmontes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARY KAY INC: Carter Suit Removed to N.D. California MARYLAND: Bid to Modify Operative Scheduling Order OK'd in Part MEMPHIS, TN: Court Stays Discovery in Kiner Suit MERCADIEN P.C.: Berry Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII MERCEDES BENZ: Settlement in Hazdovac Suit Gets Final OK MERRICK BANK: 3d Cir. Affirms Arbitration Order in Glover FCRA Suit META PLATFORMS: Court Extends Sealing Deadlines in Odumosu META PLATFORMS: Starzinski Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Walenga Seeks Refund of IEEPA Tariff Charges MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Remove Certain Exhibit from Public Record MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Strike Musante Declaration MONROE UNIVERSITY: Williams Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MONSANTO COMPANY: Vanweerdhuizen Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. MOSAIC CO: Conspires to Fix NPK Fertilizer Prices, Johnson Alleges MOZAR INTERIORS: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MR. COOPER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 3 NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev's Bid to Certify Class Tossed NCAA: Class Settlement in Brantmeier Gets Initial Nod NEBULA GENOMICS: Continues to Defend Portillo GIPA Class Suit NEW HOPE: Ware Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW WORLD: Class Certification in Breedlove Condo Fire Suit Upheld NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must Submit Status Report by July 17 NICK LAMB: Hewitt Seeks Class Certification NICOLET NATIONAL: Dismissal of Klimek NSF Fee Suit Upheld on Appeal NORTH CAROLINA: OAH Jurisdiction Dismissal in Lemaster Affirmed NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS: Buliga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime NUDERMA LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ONCOURSE HOME: Jay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California PENTAGON FEDERAL: Boczek Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Lurry Gets Final Nod PREMIUM MERCHANT: Cardosa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages PREMIUM PARTS: Benson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Hessler Case Remanded to State Court PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM: Kuzminova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit Upheld on Appeal RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification RECKITT BENCKISER: Class Bid Filing in Barrales Due June 25, 2027 REGULATORY DATACORP: Hughes Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification REGULATORY DATACORP: Hughes Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Carmack Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida RICHMOND, IN: Remand of Craig Fire Suit to State Court Affirmed RICOH USA: Ballungay Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal RIVER HEIGHTS: Court Stays Class Cert. Deadlines ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Aitken Suit Removed to E.D. California SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Johnson Securities Suit in California SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Narrows Claims in Mosaic Health Suit SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid to Stay Ulloa Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SHAHRAM SHAHBAZIAN: Standing Order Entered in Myers Class Suit SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Opposition to Conditional Cert Bid Due August 13 SLJ BAR LLC: LaPera sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SOLVENTUM CORPORATION: Smith Files Suit in D. Minnesota SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Certification Phase Discovery Requests OK'd SPARC GROUP: Peppars Seeks Dismissal of Claims w/o Prejudice SPORTSEDTV INC: Balestrieri Wins Bid for Class Certification STOP & SHOP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Suit Due Sept. 18 STOUT NYC HOSPITALITY: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SYNGENTA CROP: Watkins Sues Over Illness Tied to Paraquat Exposure TARGET CORPORATION: Buckmaster Seeks Final OK of Settlement TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Fact Discovery Due July 14 TRUE BLUE: Figueroa Class Action Transferred to E.D. Texas UNION CARBIDE: Court Orders Reopening of Sommerville Case UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois UNITED AMERICAN: Parties Must File Amend Pleadings by Sept. 29 UNITED HOMES: DiMare Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Kadiyam Suit UNITED PARCEL: Joint Proposed Class Cert Briefing Schedule OK'd UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE: Fox Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado UNO CAFE & BILLARDS: Donoso Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. VGW HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Cox Action WASHINGTON COUNTY SERVICE: Sued Over Unpaid OT Compensation WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification Tossed in Cash Sweep Suit XYZ LIMOUSINE: Partial Reversal of Summary Judgment in Abdelhamed ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Seek Class Certification ********* ABM AVIATION: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cocom Reversed on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT COCOM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Defendant-Appellee, v. ABM AVIATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and DOES, 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant Case No. 25-3246 (9th Cir.), Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court denying ABM's motion to compel arbitration and strike Cocom's class claims. ABM provides commercial janitorial services to airports, and Cocom worked for ABM as an airport janitor from August 2020 to June 2024. When hired, Cocom signed a three-page Mutual Arbitration Agreement (MAA) requiring arbitration as the exclusive remedy for covered claims and incorporating AAA arbitration rules. The agreement excluded claims already pending in litigation, waived class, collective, and representative proceedings, including PAGA claims, and included a severability provision. In August 2024, Cocom filed a putative class action in state court alleging wage and hour violations. ABM removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to compel arbitration and strike Cocom's class claims. The district court denied ABM's motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It concluded the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion and Cocom alleged he was rushed through the signing process. The court further held that four provisions were substantively unconscionable, including the MAA's broad definition of covered claims, which it interpreted under Cook v. University of Southern California, 321 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) as applying even to claims unrelated to Cocom's employment. The district court also found other provisions substantively unconscionable based on its interpretation of the MAA's broad scope. It concluded that the agreement had an indefinite duration and lacked mutuality because various ABM-related third parties could compel arbitration but might not be required to arbitrate claims brought by Cocom. The court also held that the MAA's prohibition on public injunctive relief violated California law and was substantively unconscionable. Finding multiple provisions substantively unconscionable, the district court concluded that the MAA was too tainted by illegality to be enforced. It declined to sever the challenged provisions and refused to enforce the agreement. ABM appealed. Judge VanDyke reversed the district court's judgment that ABM could not enforce the MAA the parties signed when Cocom was first employed by ABM, and remanded for further proceedings. He explained that the district court concluded that the MAA was procedurally and substantively unconscionable based on the analysis in Cook. He held that because the challenged provisions of the MAA were distinguishable in important ways from the provisions held unconscionable in Cook, the district court erred in relying on Cook. Judge VanDyke first addressed substantive unconscionability. In Cook, the court found the arbitration agreement's scope, duration, and lack of mutuality to be substantively unconscionable. Here, the MAA was limited to employment-related disputes, making this case distinguishable from Cook and from the California Court of Appeal's more recent decision in Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC, 343 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026). Second, because the MAA's more limited scope inherently limited the agreement's duration, the MAA's duration was not indefinite and not substantively unconscionable. Third, Cook's lack-of-mutuality analysis was distinguishable largely because of the MAA’s narrower scope. Although the district court did not reach the issue, Judge VanDyke concluded that the MAA's bar on using arbitration awards for preclusive or precedential effect was not substantively unconscionable. Finally, he held that even if the MAA's waivers of representative actions under California's Private Attorneys General Act or of public injunctive relief were substantively unconscionable, those provisions would be severable. Accordingly, Judge VanDyke concluded that he need not address whether either waiver rose to the level of substantive unconscionability. Because Judge VanDyke concluded that most of the MAA's challenged provisions were not substantively unconscionable and that any remaining unconscionable provisions could be properly severed, Cocom's unconscionability defense failed. Because the lack of substantive unconscionability was dispositive, he held that he need not address Cocom's arguments about procedural unconscionability. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Ninth Circuit's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/TUqtTxXsQ. Jordan D. Bello (argued) -- jbello@lelawfirm.com -- Matthew J. Gustin -- mgustin@lelawfirm.com -- Jeffrey M. Schwartz -- jeff@JeffSchwartzlaw.com -- Joseph Lavi -- jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- Brett Szmanda -- bszmanda@lelawfirm.com -- and Vincent Granberry -- vgranberry@lelawfirm.com -- Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP, Beverly Hills, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Daniel F. Fears (argued) -- dff@paynefears.com -- Brian R. Shaw -- brs@paynefears.com -- Sean A. O'Brien -- sao@paynefears.com -- and Laura Fleming -- lf@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP, Irvine, California, for Defendant-Appellant. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Castillo Can File Renewed Conditional Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RINALDYS CASTILLO, v. ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order: –- granting Castillo leave to file a renewed motion for conditional certification; -- denying Castillo leave to reopen discovery, and -- granting Castillo leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment. The Court also lifts the stay in this case forthwith. The Court further orders as follows: -- The parties are directed to file any pre-motion letters, in connection with their anticipated motions for summary judgment, by July 13, 2026. -- The Court schedules a telephonic pre-motion conference for July 29, 2026 at 3 p.m. Because the renewed motion would provide the Court with Rule 1006 summary evidence not presented in connection with the initial conditional certification motion-and because such evidence potentially could address concerns that led the Court to deny conditional certification-the Court finds that a renewed motion would not be futile.. Albert Einstein is a private medical school in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gM4uCT at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Seal Additional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to seal additional class certification and sunding daubert briefing. Pursuant to the Court's order, the Parties met and conferred and submit via this Joint Motion their positions on sealing designated information in the Subject Briefs In addition, consistent with their respective obligations under the Court's orders, Amazon has proposed redactions of Non-parties’ material cited in Amazon's filings, supported by Non-party declarations, and Plaintiffs have proposed redactions of Non-parties’ material cited in Plaintiffs' filings, supported by Non-party declarations. The Parties jointly support and move for the continued sealing of this designated Non-party material. The Amazon-designated and Non-party-designated material the Parties ask this Court to seal is identified in the redacted versions of the filings attached to Exhibits A through H of the Declaration of MaryAnn Almeida filed with this Joint Motion. Consistent with LCR 5(g)(3), before the filing of this Motion, the Parties’ counsel met and conferred via email with counsel for Non-parties eBay and Walmart. Non-party declarations in support of sealing are attached at Almeida Declaration Exhibits I-K. The Parties understand that, per the declarations provided by these Non-parties and discussions via email, the Non-party designated material includes confidential pricing and other proprietary and sensitive strategic business information. This type of non-party pricing, market share, and other strategic business information, the disclosure of which could lead to competitive harm, meets the good cause and “compelling reasons” standards and should be sealed. Amazon.com is a global technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HTHdCB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM: Must Oppose Vincenzetti Class Cert Bid by July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENZETTI v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02681 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 1, 2021), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion to restrict. The Defendant is granted to July 17, 2026 to file a motion to restrict related to the Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Diversity -- Employment. Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. [CC] ARAMARK CAMPUS: Dale Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA DALE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-04856-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Sept. 1, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move the Court for an order: 1. Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following Class and Subclasses: "The Class All non-exempt, hourly employees employed by Aramark Campus, LLC at the Oakland Coliseum at any time from May 23, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2024 (the "Class Period")." Subclass 1 -- Security Screening Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, were required to undergo mandatory security screening before clocking in for their shifts, and who were not compensated for the time spent undergoing that screening." Subclass 2 -- Controlled Walking/Waiting Time Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, were not compensated for the time spent walking from a mandatory security checkpoint to the designated time clocks and waiting in line to clock in. " Subclass 3 -- Rest Period Subclass/Failure to Authorize and Permit "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, who worked more than three and one-half hours in a workday and were not authorized and permitted to take a net 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, and were not paid one hour of premium pay at their regular rate of pay in lieu thereof." Subclass 4 -- Rest Period Subclass /Impede or Discourage "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, worked more than three and one-half hours in a workday and were impeded or discouraged from taking a net 10-minute rest period for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, and were not paid one hour of premium pay at their regular rate of pay in lieu thereof." Subclass 5 -- Regular Rate / Overtime Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, received Additional Event Pay during any pay period in which they also worked overtime." Subclass 6 --Regular Rate / Meal Premium Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, received Additional Event Pay during any pay period in which they also earned meal period premium pay." Subclass 7 — Regular Rate / Vacation Pay Overtime Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, received "vacation pay" and earned overtime during the period in which the "vacation pay" was earned." Subclass 8 -- Regular Rate / Vacation Pay Meal Premium Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the Class Period, received "vacation pay" and earned meal premium pay during the period in which the "vacation pay" was earned." Subclass 9 -- Waiting Time Subclass "All members of Subclasses 1 through 8 whose employment was terminated during the Class Period." Subclass 10 --Wage Statement Subclass "All members of the Class who, during the period from May 23, 2023 through Dec. 31, 2024, received itemized wage statements from Aramark Campus, LLC that failed to accurately reflect total hours worked, gross wages earned, and/or all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period, as a result of the wage violations alleged in Subclasses 1 through 8." 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Julia Dale as class representative; and 3. Appointing James Hawkins APLC as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). Aramark provides food services and facilities management to hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums, and other businesses around the world. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q7HFV1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com mitchell@jameshawkinsaplc.com ASSURED HEALTH: Elliott Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bart Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASSURED HEALTH GROUP LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01664 (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2026), is brought to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") due to unsolicited prerecorded messages. This case arises from Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, without regard to consumer's consent. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Washington County, Tennessee. The Defendant is a limited liability company that provides health plan products and services to consumers, based out of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BLOCK INC: Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonsalves v. Block, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00642 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order granting the Defendants motion for leave to file sur-reply in support of its opposition to motion for class certification. The Court accepts the sur-reply as filed at ECF No. 170-2. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (nwlc2, COURT STAFF) The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Block is an American technology company and a financial services provider for consumers and merchants.[CC] BLUEPEARL CALIFORNIA: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristin Clark, individually and on behalf of all current and former similarly situated employees in the state of California v. BLUEPEARL CALIFORNIA, INC.; BLUEPEARL OPERATIONS, LLC; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC; MARS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV189907 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-06508. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Reimburse Business Related Expenses; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay all Wages Due at Separation of Employment; Failure to Pay Earned and Accumulated Paid Time Off; Failure to Provide Sick Leave; Unfair Competition; and Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah E. Christenson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: sarah.christenson@ogletree.com BNY MELLON: Bid for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE WALDEN, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brown entered a judgment granting Waldens' motion for certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) of the Court's order dismissing the Waldens' class-based contract and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") claims on the grounds that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. section 78bb(f)(1) ("SLUSA") preempts those claims. The Waldens brought their claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Now that they are foreclosed from proceeding as a class, their individual claims remain and their motion to certify for interlocutory appeal under section 1292(b) is appropriate, as no final order has been issued. The Waldens generally allege that BNY breached the investment management agreements and violated the UTPCPL by failing to disclose certain conflicts of interest when it invested the Waldens' funds in BNY-affiliated mutual funds. BNY is an American international financial services company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UojQMN at no extra charge.[CC] CALVADO CARE: Parties in Sizemore Must Select Mediator by July 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole Sizemore, et al., v. Calvado Care LLC, et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-06361-EAW-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pedersen entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. This case has been referred automatically to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") program. The ADR Plan and related forms and information are available at www.nywd.uscourts.gov and the Court Clerk's office. a. No later than July 22, 2026, the parties shall confer and select a mediator, confirm the mediator's availability, ensure that the mediator does not have a conflict with any of the parties in this case, identify a date and time for the initial mediation session, and file a stipulation confirming their selection on the form provided by the Court. If the parties fail to so stipulate, the Court shall appoint an ADR neutral. b. The parties shall file any motions to opt out of the ADR process by July 8, 2026. c. An initial mediation session with the parties' agreed-upon mediator shall be held no later than Sept. 30, 2026. 2. The deadline for the parties' compliance with the mandatory initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 shall be June 24, 2026. 3. The parties shall file any motions to amend the pleadings or to add or join any parties no later than April 26, 2027. 4. Any application for appointment of interim class counsel shall be submitted no later than May 28, 2027. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than May 28, 2027. Calvado is a Brooklyn-based long-term healthcare provider offering adult day care, skilled nursing, and rehabilitation services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ywufSm at no extra charge.[CC] CHICAGO: Declaratory Judgment Dismissal in Solano Upheld -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL SOLANO, on Behalf of Plaintiff and a Class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-24-2135 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division, affirmed the circuit court's judgment dismissing Solano's declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. Solano, a commercial truck driver, received a citation from the City of Chicago on March 20, 2023, for allegedly operating an overweight tractor-trailer in violation of the Chicago Municipal Code. The citation stated that his vehicle weighed 26,000 pounds, exceeding the applicable limit by 16,000 pounds, and imposed a $2,655 fine. It also informed Solano that he could request a hearing before the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). On March 27, 2023, Solano filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County challenging DOAH’s authority to adjudicate his overweight vehicle citation. In Counts I and II, he alleged that the Illinois Municipal Code prohibited Chicago from administratively adjudicating weight violations. In Counts III and IV, he alleged that the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-208.2, 11-208.3 (West 2024)) barred the City from imposing administrative fines exceeding $250 for overweight vehicle offenses. Solano also requested a hearing before DOAH, which was continued by agreement of the parties on May 10, 2023. While Solano’s case was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court decided Cammacho v. City of Joliet, 2024 IL 129263, holding that section 1-2.1-2 of the Illinois Municipal Code does not preempt a municipality’s home rule authority to administratively adjudicate ordinance violations. Following that decision, Solano amended his complaint and removed Counts I and II, which were based on the Illinois Municipal Code. Solano's amended complaint, which became the operative pleading, asserted two claims. In Count I, he sought declaratory relief, asking the court to declare void the Chicago Municipal Code provisions allowing administrative collection of fines and penalties exceeding $250 for vehicle-related ordinance violations. In Count II, he alleged that Chicago was unjustly enriched by collecting fines above the limits permitted under the Illinois Vehicle Code. Solano brought both claims individually and on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who received fines exceeding $250 for overweight vehicle violations through DOAH proceedings. On June 10, 2024, the City moved to dismiss Solano's remaining claims. Under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the City argued that the claims were not ripe because Solano had not yet received a DOAH hearing or been assessed a fine. Alternatively, under section 2-615, the City argued that the claims failed because Chicago's home rule authority allowed it to administratively adjudicate weight violations involving fines exceeding $250. On September 26, 2024, Judge Michael T. Mullen granted the City's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court held that Chicago had home rule authority to administratively adjudicate overweight vehicle violations and that this authority was not preempted by the Illinois Vehicle Code. It further concluded that the City was not limited to a $250 cap on fines for administratively adjudicated overweight vehicle violations. Based on these findings, the court dismissed Solano's declaratory judgment claim and his unjust enrichment claim, which depended on the same theory. The court did not reach the City's ripeness argument because it was moot. Solano timely appealed. The Appellate Court reviewed two issues de novo: whether Solano's claims were justiciable and whether DOAH had authority to adjudicate overweight vehicle violations under Chicago's home rule powers. Although the circuit court did not address justiciability, the Appellate Court considered ripeness and exhaustion of administrative remedies and held that Solano's challenge to DOAH's jurisdiction was properly before the court. However, because no administrative decision or fine had been issued, the Appellate Court did not address the City's future enforcement mechanisms. On the merits, the Appellate Court held that DOAH's authority to adjudicate weight violations arises from Chicago's home rule powers and is not expressly limited by the Illinois Vehicle Code. Therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed Count I for declaratory judgment. Because DOAH's authority was not limited by the Vehicle Code, the Appellate Court also concluded that Count II for unjust enrichment failed. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment dismissing Counts I and II of Solano's amended complaint with prejudice. It affirmed the dismissal of count I (declaratory judgment) because the Vehicle Code contains no express limitation that would preempt DOAH's authority to hear weight violations enumerated in Municipal Code section 9-72-080. It affirmed the dismissal of count II (unjust enrichment) because it is dependent on a finding in count I that DOAH lacks jurisdiction. The Appellate Court expressed no judgment on the issue of the enforcement mechanisms available to the City because the issue is not properly before it. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/o0VRNHLkl. Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Tara L. Goodwin -- tgoodwin@edcombs.com -- Heather Kolbus -- hkolbus@edcombs.com -- and Caileen M. Crecco -- ccrecco@edcombs.com -- of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant. Mary B. Richardson-Lowry -- Mary.Richardson-Lowry@cityofchicago.org -- Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper -- myriam.kasper@cityofchicago.org -- Suzanne M. Loose -- suzanne.loose@cityofchicago.org -- and Alexandra Weiss -- alexandra.weiss@cityofchicago.org -- Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee. COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert Hearing in Barnes Suit Moved to Oct. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barnes v. The Coca-Cola Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511 (E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order granting telephonic participation. To accommodate the Court's calendar, the Hearing on Class Certification currently set for October 2, 2026 at 10:00 AM will now be held on October 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Coca-Cola is a multinational beverage corporation.[CC] COCA-COLA CO: Must Oppose Barnes Class Cert Bid by August 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order granting the second joint motion to modify scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline The Defendant to file opposition to Aug. 5, 2026 motion for class certification and rebuttal expert reports: The Plaintiff to file reply in support Sept. 8, 2026 of motion for class certification and reply expert reports: Hearing on class certification: Oct. 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Coca-Cola is an American multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vSm3g at no extra charge.[CC] COCA-COLA CO: Palmer Seeks to File Certain Documents 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 Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiff's application to file certain documents in support of the Plaintiff Victoria Palmer's motion for class certification under seal. The Court orders the Plaintiff to file under seal the exhibits attached to the declaration of Jason A. Ibey in support of the application to seal. The documents to be sealed contain information subject to the Confidentiality Protective Order that were designated Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only. Coca-Cola is an American multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CXQziu at no extra charge.[CC] COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid in Miller Reset to Sept. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baldino-Miller v. Courtyard Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613 (E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that the motion to certify class set for August 3, 2026 is reset to September 25, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (FJS) before Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely by Zoom video conference. The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom ID number and password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court attire is required. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels.[CC] COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Miller Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff, on a date and time to be set by the Court, will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 as follows: (1) Certifying the following classes for purposes of determining whether Marriott misclassified these groups of employees as exempt during the identified periods: a. AGM Class. "All employees who worked at any of Marriott's California hotel properties (including locations owned and/or managed by Marriott) in the position of Assistant General Manager ("AGM") at any time during the period between May 1, 2019 and the date of the class certification order ("AGM Class Relevant Period")"; and b. Covid Class. "All employees who worked at any of Marriott's California hotel properties (including locations owned and/or managed by Marriott) in any exempt position at any time during the period between Feb. 1, 2020 and the date on which, according to proof at trial, Marriott returned to a full complement of hourly workers at its California properties after the Covid-19 pandemic ("Covid Class Relevant Period")." (2) Certifying the following subclasses: a. Meal Period Subclasses. i. "All AGM Class members who worked over 5 hours in at least one workday during the AGM Relevant Period (including during the Covid Class Relevant Period) and were not provided a designated 30-minute meal period where they were relieved of all work." ii. "All Covid Class members who worked over 5 hours in at least one workday during the Covid Class Relevant Period and were not provided a designated 30-minute meal period where they were relieved of all work. b. Rest Break Subclasses. i. "All AGM Class members who worked over 3.5 hours at least one day during the AGM Relevant Period (including during the Covid Class Relevant Period) and were not provided a designated 10-minute rest break where they were relieved of all work for every four hours of work or major fraction Thereof." ii. "All Covid Class members who worked over 3.5 hours at least one day during the Covid Class Relevant Period and were not provided a designated 10-minute rest break where they were relieved of all work for every four hours of work or major fraction thereof." c. Wage Statement Subclass. i. "All AGM Class members who received a wage statement on or after May 1 2019. ii. "All Covid Class members who received a wage statement during the Covid Class Relevant Period." d. Termination Subclass. i. "All AGM Class members whose employment terminated at any time on or after May 1, 2019." ii. "All Covid Class members whose employment terminated any time on or after Feb. 1, 2020." Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=90YuQ7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq. STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Dr., Ste. B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Telephone: (805) 578-3474 E-mail: patricia@patriciastambelos.com DAVID PEYSER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Samaduroff Due May 19, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samaduroff et al v. David Peyser Sportswear Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05275 (W.D. Wash., Filed March 19, 2026), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order adopting the parties proposed briefing schedule: Mediation deadline by Oct. 21, 2026 Fact Discovery opens by Oct. 21, 2026 or 21 days after completion of mediation, Joinder of Additional Parties or Amend Pleadings due 90 days before plaintiff's motion for class certification Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification due by May 19, 2027 Defendant's Opposition due June 30, 2027 Plaintiff's reply due Aug. 4, 2027 The parties will meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's Order on class certification regarding additional scheduling deadlines. The nature of suit states Petition for Removal- Fraud. The Defendant is a manufacturer, importer and distributor of men's and women's sportswear, outerwear, activewear and accessories.[CC] DESERT PALMS: Attorney Fee Award to Former Counsel in Boyce Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DONALD BOYCE, ROBERT A. LINDSAY, and ERIK NYQUIST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ERICA V. OLIVAS, Objecting Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DESERT PALMS APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a New Mexico limited partnership, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. A-1-CA-41325 (N.M. App.), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to former class counsel Angel L. Saenz, remanded for recalculation and redistribution of those funds to the class, and otherwise affirmed the district court's order approving the class settlement and awarding attorney fees and costs. The appeal arises from a class action between Desert Palms Apartments and a class of its current and former tenants. After the parties reached a class settlement, the Class Counsel (Christopher Benoit of Coyle & Benoit, P.L.L.C.) moved for an award of attorney fees and costs. The Class Counsel sought attorney fees equal to 30 percent of the common settlement fund, along with costs. The motion also requested that the fees and costs be divided between current Class Counsel and former counsel, Saenz, pursuant to a fee-sharing agreement approved by the class representatives, despite Saenz facing disciplinary proceedings related to his representation of the class. Class member Erica V. Olivas objected to the fee motion, arguing that former counsel Saenz was barred from receiving fees or costs because of his misconduct and the New Mexico Supreme Court's disciplinary order. She also challenged portions of the requested fee and cost award to the current Class Counsel. The district court overruled Objector's objections, approved the class settlement, and granted the motion for attorney fees and costs after issuing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, the Objector challenged the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to both Saenz and Benoit. During the appeal, however, Saenz relinquished his claim to fees and costs, and the Class agreed that his share would be redistributed pro rata among class members. On appeal, the Objector argued that the district court improperly awarded fees and costs to Saenz despite his misconduct and disciplinary order, and that Benoit should likewise be denied fees and costs because he allegedly acted against the Class's interests by assisting Saenz. In light of the Class's concessions, the Court of Appeals declined to address whether Saenz was entitled to attorney fees and costs. Accepting the Class's position that Saenz was no longer entitled to those funds, it granted the Class's motion to supplement the record and treated the issue as resolved. As to the remaining issues, the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to the Class Counsel. It agreed that Benoit acted to defend the class settlement and resolve the litigation efficiently, and therefore properly overruled the Objector's allegations of misconduct. Consistent with the Class's concessions on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney fees and costs to Saenz and remanded for recalculation of the fee award and redistribution of Saenz's share to the Class. In all other respects, it affirmed the district court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/2PPDuXPW3. Law Office of Jamison Barkley, LLC, Jamison Berkley -- jamison@jamisonbarkley.com -- Santa Fe, NM, Coyle & Benoit, P.L.L.C., Christopher Benoit -- chris@coylefirm.com -- El Paso, TX, for Appellees. The Furth Law Firm P.A., Ben Furth -- benfurth64@yahoo.com -- Paul Hibner -- paul.hibner.work@gmail.com -- Las Cruces, NM, for Appellant. Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C., Neil R. Blake -- nrblake@btblaw.com -- Rheba Rutkowski -- rrutkowski@btblaw.com -- Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant-Appellee. DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Filing in Walker Continued to July 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00349-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in part the stipulation to continue class certification deadlines as follows: (1) The class certification motion filing deadline is continued from July 1, 2026, to July 15, 2026; and (2) The class certification response filing deadline is continued from Aug. 31, 2026, to Sept. 14, 2026; and (3) The class certification reply filing deadline is continued from Dec. 18, 2026, to Jan. 4, 2027. Because this action was removed to federal court on March 8, 2023, the court finds it necessary to limit the current sought-for extension of the class certification deadlines. Future extensions should not be anticipated absent a showing of extremely good cause. Recognizing the uncertainty of Plaintiff Tami Hunter-Neal in this action and noting that she has until July 2, 2026, to show cause as to whether her claims should be dismissed, the court grants a 14-day extension of the existing class certification deadlines. Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhS84j at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid in Brown Due August 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01380 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 25, 2015), the Hon. Judge Jia M Cobb entered an order granting motion for extension of time: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due by August 17, 2026. The Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion is due by September 16, 2026. The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion is due by October 16, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Defendant is the governmental structure of the U.S. federal district of the District of Columbia.[CC] DOLA HAIR: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Debose-Jakcson ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON DEBOSE-JACKSON, v. DOLA HAIR, AIBO COSMETICS COMPANY, LTD., and AMAZON, Case No. 4:25-cv-01053-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge entered an initial scheduling order as follows: 1. Rule 26(f) conference deadline: Aug. 28, 2026 The parties are jointly responsible for holding their Rule 26(f) conference on or before the date specified. 2. Rule 26(f) report due date: Sept. 11, 2026 Consult FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule 26.1 for information to be included in the Rule 26(f) Report. The Report should be filed with the Clerk of the Court. 3. Proposed trial date: June 7, 2027 The case will be scheduled for jury trial before United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker commencing at 9:00 a.m. sometime during the week as set for above in the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Courtroom #4D, 500 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. Dola Hair offers human hair wigs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yR6ugd at no extra charge.[CC] DREAM GAMES: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by April 23, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANNA SCHUDDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DREAM GAMES TEKNOLOJİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ, a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01215-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order granting the stipulated motion to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Civil Rule 16 as follows: Event Deadline Class certification (fact) discovery Dec. 19, 2026 cutoff: The Plaintiffs' expert report(s)/ Feb. 19, 2027 declaration(s) re class certification issues: Class certification brief: March 5, 2027 The Defendant's expert report(s)/ April 9, 2027 declaration(s) re class certification issues: Opposition to class certification: April 23, 2027 Expert discovery cutoff: May 10, 2027 The Defendant develops and publishes mobile games for the entertainment industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cw1ptl at no extra charge.[CC] ECONOMY PREFERRED: Miller Must File Supplement Brief by July 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MILLER, v. ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05518-GJL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Grady J. Leupold entered an order denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel and directing supplemental briefing: The Court denies the Defendants' request to overrule the Plaintiff's objections to their discovery requests based on timeliness. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is denied in part. Further, the Court orders supplemental briefing on the motion to compel as follows: 1. The Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief by July 17, 2026. 2. The Defendants shall file a response to the Plaintiff's supplemental brief by July 31, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff may file a reply to the Defendants' response by Aug. 7, 2026. The Clerk shall renote the Defendants' motion to compel for consideration on the Court's calendar for Aug. 7, 2026. The Court finds that the same waiver provision found in Rule 33(b)(4) applies to document requests under Rule 34. Additionally, the Court finds good cause to excuse the Plaintiff's late response. Although the parties dispute the timing of the deadline for responses to the Defendants' Dec. 19, 2025, discovery requests, there is no evidence the Plaintiff acted in bad faith or that the Defendants have been prejudiced. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' request to overrule the Plaintiff's objections based on timeliness. On April 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against the Defendants in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington, alleging a single breach of contract claim on behalf of a putative class as well as an individual Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA") claim against Defendants. The Defendant is an active property & casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vpJywf at no extra charge.[CC] EDITION MANAGEMENT: Pratt Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marc Pratt, an individual, on behalf of Plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. EDITION MANAGEMENT LLC, Delaware limited liability company; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14616 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07054. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action against Defendants: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Cal. Labor Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Cal Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Labor Code; and Failure to Permit Inspection of Employee Records in Violation of Cal. Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Order.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dana A. Kravetz, Esq. Alexandra D. Miller, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 299-5500 Facsimile: (310) 299-5600 Email: dkravetz@mrllp.com amiller@mrllp.com EUROPEAN WAX CENTER: Maxey Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging --------------------------------------------------------------- Britne Maxey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, INC., Case No. 25137079S (Fla. Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., June 29, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Further, to promote its goods, sevices, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messages to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion seclusion invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the dally life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters located in Plano, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alina O'Connor, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: aline@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com FREEWAY INSURANCE: Must File Class Cert Reply by July 20 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Freeway Insurance Services of America, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01869 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows The Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this Order to respond to Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Defendant has 7 days from the date Plaintiff files a response to file their reply. Response is due by July 13, 2026. Reply is due by July 20, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Freeway is an American insurance agency.[CC] GARRISON INVT: Messer Alter Ego/Veil-Piercing Suit Dismissal Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TONY A. MESSER; KEVIN N. MUMPOWER; JANICE L. BOOHER; PATRICIA C. EADS; PHILIP E. BARBROW; BENJIE G. HICKS; KENDALL W. LUTTRELL; DARRELL G. MURRAY; DAVID A. STOVALL; DENNIS J. STILTNER; TIMOTHY M. WAMPLER; MICHAEL L. PARKER; CHARLES E. VESTAL; JIMMY AMBERGEY; DAVE S. BOOHER; LARRY RICHARDS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GARRISON INVESTMENT GROUP, LP; JOSEPH B. TANSEY; STEVEN SCOTT STUART; GIG GP LLC; JTSS BORROWER LLC; JOSHUA BRANDT; JULIAN WELDON; BRIAN STEVEN CHASE; GARRISON SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES GP LLC; GARRISON COMMERCIAL FUNDING VIII LLC; GARRISON FINANCIAL ASSETS MM LLC; GARRISON SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES HOLDINGS GP LLC; BCPI ACQUISITIONS, INC; GARRISON BRISTOL LLC; GARRISON BRISTOL HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-1657 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellants were employees at Bristol Compressors International, LLC's manufacturing facility in Bristol, Virginia. After BCI announced in July 2018 that it would shut down operations and begin layoffs, employees were terminated between July and November 2018, with the facility closing on November 16, 2018. On October 19, 2018, the Appellants filed a class action lawsuit against BCI and Garrison, an alleged successor and alter ego of BCI, in federal court ("Messer I"). The Appellants alleged that BCI violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 ("WARN Act") by failing to provide sufficient notice before closing the plant and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by improperly terminating an employee severance plan. They also claimed Garrison was liable as BCI’s successor and alter ego because it acquired an interest in BCI and participated in the plant closure and employee terminations. The Appellants argued that BCI and Garrison should be treated as a single employer under the WARN Act. The district court certified three subclasses of former BCI employees. After discovery, Garrison moved for summary judgement, arguing it could not be held liable under the WARN Act as a single employer with BCI. BCI and Garrison also sought summary judgment on the ERISA severance claim, claims by employees who signed release agreements, and WARN Act claims by employees who received 60 days' notice. The Appellants did not oppose Garrison's summary judgment motion on the single employer theory. Instead, they moved to voluntarily dismiss Garrison without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), arguing that dismissal would conserve resources while they continued litigating their WARN Act claims against BCI. Although Garrison opposed dismissal, the district court granted the Appellants' motion to dismiss it without prejudice, finding no sufficient legal prejudice to Garrison. In the same order, the court granted BCI partial summary judgment on the ERISA severance claim, finding the plan was ERISA-governed but not unlawfully terminated. It also granted BCI summary judgment on claims by employees who signed Stay Bonus Letter Agreements and employees who received 60 days' WARN Act notice. After dismissing Garrison and granting BCI partial summary judgment, the district court held a bench trial on the remaining WARN Act claims. BCI did not appear, and the court found BCI liable for WARN Act violations, entering judgment against it for $1,392,915.40. The Appellants appealed the unfavorable summary judgment rulings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the rulings on claims released through the Stay Bonus Letter Agreements but vacated the decisions regarding the ERISA severance plan and remaining WARN Act issues. It held that the severance plan was governed by ERISA and that BCI failed to properly terminate the plan under its own procedures. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the Appellants on the ERISA and WARN Act claims after BCI again failed to respond. It awarded $2,407,471.90 in additional damages and $277,717.81 in attorneys' fees and costs, increasing the total judgment against BCI to $4,078,105.11. Unable to collect the $4,078,105.11 judgment from the insolvent and dissolved BCI, the Appellants filed a new action in August 2024 seeking to hold Garrison and 14 other individuals and entities liable under alter ego and veil-piercing theories. They alleged the appellees controlled BCI's liquidation and failed to satisfy BCI's WARN Act and ERISA obligations. The Appellants sought recovery of the prior judgment, interest, fees, and additional WARN Act-related damages, arguing that federal law allowed derivative liability for BCI's obligations. The Appellees moved to dismiss the action under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the claims were time-barred under ERISA and the WARN Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the action sought to impose liability on Garrison and other non-liable parties for a prior judgment against BCI, which was not permitted under Peacock v. Thomas. It further concluded that the claims would be untimely even if jurisdiction existed. The Appellants appealed both rulings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It explained that federal jurisdiction could potentially arise through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or federal common law ancillary jurisdiction, but concluded that neither basis provided jurisdiction over the Appellants' claims. The Fourth Circuit held that federal question jurisdiction did not exist because the appellants were not asserting new ERISA or WARN Act violations. It explained that ERISA does not provide an independent claim for piercing the corporate veil, and the WARN Act claims sought only to enforce the prior Messer I judgment against Garrison through veil-piercing theories. The Court concluded that such an attempt to impose liability for an existing judgment did not create federal question jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit also held that ancillary jurisdiction did not apply. It explained that jurisdiction from the original Messer I case did not extend to this separate action seeking to enforce the prior judgment against Garrison, a party that was never found liable. Because the Appellants were attempting to impose liability on Garrison for BCI's judgment rather than enforce the judgment against an existing liable party, the Court lacked ancillary jurisdiction. he Fourth Circuit concluded that the Appellants' action was based solely on veil-piercing theories and did not involve new ERISA or WARN Act violations. Because the Messer I judgment was entered only against BCI after Garrison's dismissal, the Court held that the district court properly found no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the attempt to impose liability on Garrison. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/RmNMXyYdd. Mary Lynn Tate -- mltate@tatelaw.com -- TATE LAW P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellants. Mark Hunter Churchill -- Mark.Churchill@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Tysons, Virginia, for Appellees GONSALVES & SANTUCCI: Beltran Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Manuel Beltran, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GONSALVES & SANTUCCI, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C26-493202 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06525. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime, recordkeeping/timekeeping violations, wage statement penalties, and violation of unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Stephanie Teece, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: giskander@littler.com steece@littler.com GOODVETS VETERINARY: Scheduling Conference Set for August 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Wolfe, v. GoodVets Veterinary Services LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02836-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting Rule 16 scheduling conference for Aug. 11, 2026. The parties are directed to meet and confer at least 21 days before the Scheduling Conference. At this meeting, the parties shall develop a Joint Proposed Case Management Report. After the Scheduling Conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order. The Court will, absent good cause, enforce the deadlines in the Scheduling Order. The Court further orders that within 10 days, the Plaintiff(s) must serve this Order on any Defendant(s) that has not yet appeared or answered. 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. Failure to comply with every provision of this order may lead to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). The Defendant specializes in providing comprehensive veterinary care services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7cUIMD at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Fennessy Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Facial Data ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Fennessy, Breu'ana Cole, Catherine Brooks, Keltin Garner, Kevin Fredley, Melodie Mosley, Michael Doherty, and Roger Jollis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-06534-VKD (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2026), is brought challenging Google's systematic collection, storage, and commercial use of the facial-recognition data of people who did not consent to having their faces scanned. Google Nest security cameras and doorbells offer a "Familiar Face Detection" feature that uses artificial intelligence to scan the face of every person who appears in the camera's field of view, to capture an image of that person's face, to create a mathematical template of the person's facial geometry (a "faceprint"), and to compare that faceprint against a library of stored profiles (a "familiar face library"). Google knows this is unlawful. It has disabled Familiar Face Detection in Illinois, the only state with a hyper-specific biometric privacy statute allowing private citizens to sue for unconsented collection of facial-recognition data. The Plaintiffs cannot identify which devices scanned them or on which occasions with certainty because Google built the system to make that information virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to obtain. Google, by contrast, can determine whether and where images of Plaintiffs' faces have been captured and stored: the very faceprint-matching technology at issue allows Google to identify every familiar face library in which Plaintiffs' facial geometry appears. Those records are in Google's possession. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a nationwide class and a Virginia subclass of persons whose facial-recognition data was collected, stored, and used by Google's Familiar Face Detection feature without their consent, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia and are not customers of Google Nest or Google Home products. Google designs, manufactures, markets, sells, and operates Nest branded security cameras and doorbells, including the Familiar Face Detection feature.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 333 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com GOPHER RESOURCE: Evans Suit Removed to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derrell Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gopher Resource, LLC, ECP Gopher Holdings, LP, and Energy Capital Partners Management, LP, Case No. 26CV189907 was removed from the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the County of Hennepin, Minnesota to, to the United States District Court for District of Minnesota on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03128. The Plaintiff's class allegations illustrate that Plaintiff is in agreement, stating that "whether Defendants have a common practice or policy of failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and the putative Class for all time worked in violation of Minn. Stat. Sections 181. 101 181.13, and 181.14" is a substantial question of law or fact.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marko J. Mrkonich, Esq. John H. Lassetter, Esq. Brendan C. Johnson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1300 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402.2136 Phone: 612.630.1000 Facsimile: 612.630.9626 Email: mmrkonich@littler.com jlassetter@littler.com bcjohnson@littler.com GREENSKY LLC: Loses Appeal on Nov. 7, 2025 Letter Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA A. PRITCHARD on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. GREENSKY, LLC d/b/a GREENSKY INSTALLMENT, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-19429-CCC-JRA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cecchi entered an order denying the Defendants' appeal of Judge Almonte's Nov. 7, 2025, Letter Order. The Defendants assert the Court should proceed to summary judgment "to avoid costly and/or needless litigation on class issues." Judge Almonte disagreed with this argument given the intertwined nature of class and individual discovery. His determination to allow class-related discovery to proceed is neither contrary to law or clearly erroneous, nor an abuse of his discretion. Accordingly, it would prejudice the Plaintiff to bifurcate discovery and deprive her of the opportunity to uncover potential facts pertinent to a motion for summary judgment. As such, the Defendants' appeal is denied. GreenSky is a financial technology company founded in 2006 based in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=434IeN at no extra charge.[CC] HARTFORD, CT: Settlement Class in Wright Gets Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WRIGHT, JOHNESHA HARRISON, and JUDITH TIRADO TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, and ANNETTE SANDERSON, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, Case No. 3:23-cv-01285-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Underhill entered an order as follows: -- The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class and each Subclass defined as: "Current and former Tenant Families of HACH-owned, operated, or controlled low-income public housing units, who, during the Class Period consisting of July 20, 2020 through July 8, 2024: (i) had rent calculated in whole or in part by HACH on the HACH Zero Income Form (the "Zero Income Subclass"); (ii) had rent calculated in whole or in part by HACH based on non-wage Cash Deposits (the "Cash Deposit Subclass"); and/or (iii) were evicted and/or were served with a notice to quit by HACH without being afforded an opportunity for a grievance hearing (except for those to whom the HACH administrative grievance procedures do not apply pursuant to the then controlling law or regulation) (the "Eviction Subclass")." Excluded from the Settlement Class and Settlement Subclass are: (1) any judge or magistrate judge of the United States or their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them; (2) HACH, as well as any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or control person of HACH, and the officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees of HACH; (3) any of the Released Parties; (4) Class Counsel and their employees; and (5) the immediate family of any such person(s) in (1)-(4). -- The Court finds and concludes that due and sufficient notice has been given in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the Settlement Agreement. -- This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own attorney's fees and costs. Housing Authority provides public housing. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFxbqx at no extra charge.[CC] HEAVENLY FINEST: Must Pay Unpaid Wages, Interest in "Velasquez" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Claber Velasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Heavenly Finest Deli Inc. (d/b/a Heavenly Finest Deli), and Yousef Mefleh, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08542-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in this Memorandum and Order dated July 1, 2026. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from August 4, 2025 through September 3, 2025 as a delivery worker, stocker, cashier and kitchen assistant. He alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, and failure to provide wage notices and wage statements. Plaintiff worked six days weekly, totaling 54 hours, and received $13.00 per hour for both regular and overtime hours, except for one pay period in which he was not paid for 18 hours of work. Plaintiff originally brought the action as an FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). However, in the motion for default judgment, he sought damages only for himself. The Court's ruling accordingly addresses individual relief and does not proceed on a collective or class basis. Plaintiff filed the complaint on October 15, 2025. Defendants HFD and Mefleh were served in October 2025 but never responded. Plaintiff moved for default judgment on January 27, 2026, and neither Defendant appeared at the February 27, 2026 hearing on the motion. The Court found Defendants qualify as employers under both the FLSA and NYLL, applying the economic reality test, and held them jointly and severally liable. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the NYLL minimum wage of $16.50 per hour and overtime for hours worked beyond forty per week. The Court declined to apply a tip credit, since Defendants never notified Plaintiff that tips would offset his wages. The Court also found Defendants failed to provide wage notices and accurate wage statements under NYLL Section 195, and that Plaintiff established standing by alleging the omissions prevented him from identifying and pursuing his underpayment. -- $1,451.82 in back wages under the NYLL, with 9 percent prejudgment interest accruing from August 19, 2025 -- $1,451.82 in liquidated damages -- $1,200 for violation of NYLL Section 195(1) -- $5,000 for violation of NYLL Section 195(3) -- Post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 -- An automatic 15 percent increase if any portion of the judgment remains unpaid ninety days after entry, under NYLL Section 198(4) The Court denied Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs without prejudice. The billing submission listed attorney Michael Faillace as having performed the work, but a different attorney, Robert Jun, had appeared and filed on Plaintiff's behalf, with no corresponding time entries. The Court found the submission insufficient to assess reasonableness of the requested rates or hours, and directed Plaintiff to file a renewed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), supported by contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney's role and experience. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 1, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ax1a5F from PacerMonitor.com HIGHMARK INC: Loses Renewed Bid to Dismiss "Mollinea" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cathy Mollinea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Highmark, Inc. (d/b/a Highmark BlueCross Blue Shield, Highmark Blue Shield and/or Highmark Health Plan) and Highmark Health, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:24-1572 (W.D. Pa.), United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Highmark's renewed motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties. Mollinea brought this putative class action alleging that she and members of the proposed class were not paid commissions for all their sales of Highmark health insurance policies. She had no direct contract with Highmark; instead, she was paid through middlemen, including General Agencies Kistler Tiffany and Ritter, and Agency HealthMarkets. Her operative complaint asserted claims of unjust enrichment and money had and received. Highmark moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and Rule 19, arguing that Emerson Reid, Kistler Tiffany, Ritter, and HealthMarkets were necessary parties whose joinder was not feasible because of arbitration and forum-selection provisions in their respective contracts, and that the absent agencies were therefore indispensable, requiring dismissal of all claims. Applying the Third Circuit's three-step Rule 19 framework, the Court first examined whether complete relief could be accorded without the middlemen under Rule 19(a)(1)(A). The Court found that Highmark did not contend complete relief was unavailable between the existing parties, noting that "either Highmark owes commissions to her or it does not, and no other parties are needed to resolve this question." Highmark's argument rested on speculation about future suits by the agencies, which the Court held was not the governing standard. Turning to Rule 19(a)(1)(B), the Court considered whether resolving the action would impair the person’s ability to protect their interests or expose Highmark to inconsistent obligations. The Court determined that Mollinea's claim, grounded in unjust enrichment rather than breach of contract, would not affect any separate contractual claims the agencies might later bring against Highmark. The Court also rejected Highmark's contention that it faced a risk of double or inconsistent obligations, observing that Mollinea explicitly disclaimed any recovery from the General Agencies, and that Highmark remained free to implead the agencies under Rule 14 or pursue indemnification separately. The Court further noted that Highmark had not cited, and its own research had not found, any case holding that middlemen collecting and forwarding commissions were necessary parties to a suit against the principal obligor. Having found that Highmark failed to demonstrate the General Agencies were necessary parties under Rule 19(a), the Court held it need not reach whether joinder was feasible or whether the action should proceed in equity and good conscience under Rule 19(b).Accordingly, Highmark's renewed motion to dismiss was denied. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 2, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wdgefa from PacerMonitor.com HRB TAX: Loses Bid to Keep Data Breach Suit in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as B.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., and H&R Block Services, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00064 (S.D.W. Va.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand a putative class action alleging misuse of customer data. The Plaintiff, a West Virginia resident, filed suit in Kanawha County Circuit Court alleging that an employee of the Defendant improperly accessed customers' personally identifiable information and used it to fraudulently generate Aflac insurance policies. The Defendant removed the case to federal court on January 28, 2026, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and, alternatively, traditional diversity jurisdiction. The Plaintiff brought claims for violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, unjust enrichment, breach of confidentiality, and negligence, and moved to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties disputed the size of the proposed class. The Complaint referenced figures ranging from hundreds to thousands of affected individuals, and separately alleged a class of approximately 35,100 members, which the Plaintiff called a scrivener error and argued the true class size was closer to 350. The Defendant relied on the 35,100 figure, as well as speculative lifetime credit-monitoring costs of roughly $14,239 per class member, to argue the $5,000,000 CAFA threshold was met. The Court found the Defendant failed to meet its burden of proving CAFA jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. According to the Court, the Defendant offered no evidence supporting the 35,100 figure and could not rely solely on a disputed complaint allegation. The Court also rejected the Defendant's credit-monitoring calculation as speculative, since it rested on assumptions about the class's average age and life expectancy rather than concrete facts, and similarly rejected reliance on 20% of the Plaintiff's capped stipulation amount as unsupported. Turning to diversity jurisdiction, the Court found the Defendant's own damages calculations totaled only $15,150 per the Plaintiff, well short of the $75,000 threshold. The Court declined to credit the Defendant's estimated attorneys' fees, noting the hourly rates cited were inconsistent with rates in the district, and rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's $74,999 capped stipulation plus nominal compliance costs satisfied the amount in controversy, clarifying that the stipulation set a ceiling rather than serving as a demand for damages. Because the Defendant failed to establish jurisdiction under either CAFA or traditional diversity principles, the Court ordered the case remanded to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, and terminated the Plaintiff's related motion for costs and fees as moot. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 1, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KoqCbw from PacerMonitor.com INTERSTATE-RIM: Court Stays Host Suit Pending Arbitration Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE HOST, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-03117-HDV-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order as follows: 1. The Parties' stipulation to stay action pending ruling on motion to compel arbitration in class action is approved. 2. This Action is stayed in its entirety pending the issuance of the Court's ruling on the motion to compel arbitration in the class action (the "MTCA Ruling"). 3. The stay shall be automatically lifted upon entry of the MTCA Ruling. Within 14 days after entry of the MTCA Ruling, the Parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report apprising the Court of the MTCA Ruling and its effect on this Action and propose a schedule for further proceedings (including, as appropriate, the scheduling conference) to be held. 4. All hearings and deadlines in this Action are vacated, including, without limitation: (a) the Rule 26(f) Conference deadline of June 23, 2026; (b) the Joint Rule 26(f) Report deadline of June 30, 2026; (c) the deadline for initial disclosures of July 7, 2026; (d) the in-person Scheduling Conference currently set for July 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.; and (e) the deadline to file the Class Certification Motion set for Nov. 11, 2026. 5. All applicable statutes of limitations, including the limitations period for the filing of consents to join by any opt-in plaintiff pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sections 255 and 256, and all deadlines for taking any procedural or substantive action in this FLSA Action, shall be tolled and extended for the duration of the stay. Interstate-Rim is a hotel management company based in Newport Beach, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MTrjyz at no extra charge.[CC] JACOB OLIVA: Class Cert. Bid Filling Due July 23 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, et al., v. JACOB OLIVA, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Arkansas Department of Education's Division of Elementary and Secondary Education and Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00273-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Baker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for continuance of all remaining dates. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion and extends the following deadlines in the Court's second amended final scheduling order: -- The discovery deadline is extended to, and including, July 16, 2026. -- The deadline for filing all motions, except motions for class certification and motions in limine is extended to, and including, July 23, 2026. -- The deadline for filing motions pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is extended to, and Including, July 23, 2026. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that it seeks to extend all other deadlines in the Court's second amended final scheduling order. All other deadlines in the Court's second amended final scheduling order remain in full force and effect, including the trial date which remains set for the week of Sept. 28, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FhZbFJ at no extra charge.[CC] JCRB INC: Blanco Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN CAMILO BLANCO ACOSTA and SERGIO ARDILA ORTIZ, v. JCRB INC. D/B/A BISTRO CAFÉ, JAN KARLO RUIZ ORTIZ, and TAMARA PEREZ FELICIANO, Case No. 1:25-cv-25762-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following Rule 23(b)(3) classes: a. IRC Server Subclass: "All persons employed by JCRB Inc. d/b/a Bistro Café as servers during the five years immediately preceding the filing of this action through the date of class notice, who received customer tips through payroll and for whom JCRB Inc. filed one or more Forms W-2 or other qualifying information returns that reported as that employee's income tip amounts the employee was required to remit to other Workers." b. IRC Tip-Recipient Subclass: "All persons employed by JCRB Inc. d/b/a Bistro Café in positions other than server during the five years immediately preceding the filing of this action through the date of class notice, who received mandatory tipout payments from servers and for whom JCRB filed one or more Forms W-2 or other qualifying information returns that did not report those tip-out amounts as that employee's income." c. Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") Class: "All persons employed by JCRB Inc. d/b/a Bistro Café as servers during the five years immediately preceding the filing of this action through the date of class notice, who were paid a tipped cash wage below the full Florida minimum wage while the Defendants claimed a tip credit and required them to remit tips to kitchen employees, baristas, or other employees whom the evidence shows did not customarily and regularly receive tips." 2. Excluding from all classes Defendants; any officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants; the presiding Judge and judicial staff; and any person who timely requests exclusion. 3. Appointing the Plaintiff Blanco as representative for the IRC Server Subclass and the FMWA Class. 4. Appointing Plaintiff Ardila as representative for the IRC Tip-Recipient Subclass. 5. Appointing FairLaw Firm as class counsel under Rule 23(g). Because liability rises or falls on evidence common to every class member, the proposed classes satisfy Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Litigating dozens of nearly identical individual actions would needlessly duplicate discovery, create the risk of inconsistent adjudications, and undermine the efficiencies Rule 23 was enacted to achieve. According to the Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint and the declarations submitted in support of this Motion, the Defendants required every server to surrender predetermined portions of customer gratuities to bussers, runners, bartenders, baristas, and kitchen employees pursuant to a mandatory tip-out policy enforced by management. JCRB is a Puerto Rican-inspired restaurant and brunch concept founded by owner and chef Jan Karlo Ruiz Ortiz. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TFHNrs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. Patrick Brooks LaRou, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com brooks@fairlawattorney.com JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Court Dismisses Lucy Suit w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, et al., v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered a judgment that the preliminary injunction motion will be denied, the class certification motion will be denied as moot, the pseudonym motion will be granted, the first motion to seal will be denied, and the second motion to seal will be denied. Finally, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs have failed to present evidence (or even allegations) to show that they are subject to valid and outstanding removal orders so as to demonstrate that their planned conduct is arguably proscribed by Section 1 of H.B. 1704. In other words, the Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing through evidence that they are likely to establish each element of standing. Accordingly, the Preliminary Injunction Motion can be and will be denied on this basis. Because they have failed to allege that they are subject to removal orders that are valid and outstanding, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly suggested that their intended conduct is arguably proscribed by Section 1 of H.B. 1704. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege injury-in-fact and have thus failed to plausibly allege standing. The Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit by filing the complaint on June 4, 2026. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring a single claim, wherein they assert that Section 1 of H.B. 1704, a recently enacted Tennessee criminal statute, is preempted by federal law. Jonathan Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ipG9Ec at no extra charge.[CC] ECONOMY PREFERRED: JOSEPH ROYBAL: Kean Bid to Certify Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kean (PS) v. Roybal, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00889 (D. Colo., Filed March 2, 2026), the Hon. Judge Lewis T. Babcock entered an order: -- denying Motion to Certify Class; -- denying Motion Requesting Disclosure; -- denying Motion to Inform the Court pursuant to Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Richard T. Gurley on June 29, 2026. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC] JOSEPH ROYBALL: Amended Prisoner Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PATRICK KEAN, v. EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, JOSEPH ROYBALL, Sheriff, DETENTION BUREAU CHIEF, DETENTION BUREAU OPERATIONS COMMANDER, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00889-LTB-RTG (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gurley entered a recommendation that: -- The amended prisoner complaint and the action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8; -- The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied for the reasons set forth in the June 11, 2026, Minute Order; -- The Plaintiff's motion requesting disclosure is denied as procedurally unsupported; and -- The Plaintiff's motion to inform the Court is denied as unclear. Because the Plaintiff fails to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is entitled to relief, the Amended Prisoner Complaint and the action should be dismissed for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The Defendants include MAIL OPERATIONS LIEUTENANT DAVIS, INMATE SERVICES PROGRAM DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT SERVICES CHIEF, JOHN AND JANE DOES, Mail Staff, Kiosk Staff, Medical Section Kiosk Staff, et al., HIG CAPITAL, TKC HOLDINGS, KEEFE GROUP, et al., TRINITY SERVICE GROUP, IC SOLUTIONS, et al., (Correct Solutions), TECH FRIENDS, INC., SMART COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING, INC., LAW LIBRARY VENDOR & INSTALLER, COUNTIES UNDER JOINT-CONTRACT WITH TECH FRIENDS, THE STATE OF COLORADO, and other unknown states, in their capacity as federal agencies, THE STATE OF COLORADO, in its sovereign capacity, COLO. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON COLO. JAIL STANDARDS, NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOC., THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUH1Cj at no extra charge.[CC] KAISER FOUNDATION: Culbert Seeks Class Action Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CULBERT and DOUGLAS WARRINER, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF COLORADO, a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) certify the Plaintiffs' Colorado Wage Act ("CWA") Overtime claims as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) direct the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with a list of all hourly non-exempt UFCW, Local 7 represented health care professionals employed by the Defendant in the state of Colorado who worked either more than 12 hours in a day or more than 40 hours in a work week in the same work week which they also worked more than 5 days consecutively between March 25, 2022 and the present (More Than 5 Days List) and a list of all hourly non-exempt UFCW, Local 7 represented healthcare professionals who worked more than 12 hours in a day or more than 40 hours in a week in the same work week in which they also worked on a company designated holiday between March 25, 2022 and the present (the Holiday Pay list), including the employees' names, last known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of work for each list; (3) Authorize the Plaintiffs to send the Notices and Opt-Out Forms attached as the Plaintiffs' Exhibits 4 and 5 to all individuals in the More Than 5 Days and Holiday Pay Classes whose information is provided by Defendant through the addresses within their contact information and provide follow-up contact to assure receipt of such Notices and Forms; (4) Designate the Plaintiffs Jennifer Culbert and Doug Warriner to serve as representatives of the More Than 5 Days and Holiday Pay Classes; The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the CWA, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS") Orders by failing to include shift differential rates for their hours worked on a holiday and for their hours worked on a sixth or seventh consecutive day of work in the calculation of their regular rate. The two classes proposed by Plaintiff, The More Than 5 Days Class: All classes of hourly UFCW professional health care employees who worked in non-supervisory positions in Kaiser Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or more than 12 hours in a day during workweeks in which they also worked more than five days consecutively, dating back three years from the date of filing; and The Holiday Class: All classes of hourly UFCW professional health care employees who worked in non-supervisory positions in Kaiser Centers throughout Colorado who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or more than 12 hours in a day during workweeks in which they also worked on a company designated holiday, dating back three years from the date of original filing of the Complaint The Defendant is a health care provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4erOI5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trent R. Taylor, Esq. David H. Miller, Esq. THE WILHITE & MILLER LAW FIRM 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 551-7663 Facsimile: (303) 832-7102 E-mail: ttaylor@wilhitelawfirm.com dhmiller@wilhitelawfirm.com KAMCO INDUSTRIES: Burgess Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Burgess, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KAMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01449 (N.D. Ohio, June 25, 2026), is brought challenging the Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA") for Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked in those weeks when the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked less than 40 hours. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were hourly manufacturing employees who worked for Defendant within the last three years. The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked for Defendant at a set hourly rate. The Defendant further agreed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked for Defendant over 40 in a workweek at a premium rate of one and one-half times their properly calculated regular rate. At no time was the Plaintiff or other similarly situated employees paid on a salary basis. As a result of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not being paid for the pre-shift work, they were not paid for all hours worked and not paid overtime compensation for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA and Ohio law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 9, 2026, to April 15, 2026, as a non-exempt, hourly manufacturing employee. The Defendant is a full-service provider of product design and manufacturer of injection, sheet molded and Formed Fiber Felt products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Jay E. Krasovec, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (234) 401-9371 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com jkrasovec@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, Ohio 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com KERZNER MONTANA: Swain Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ---------------------------------------------------- Sara Swain, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KERZNER MONTANA EMPLOYMENT, INC. d/b/a ONE & ONLY MOONLIGHT BASIN, Case No. 1:26-cv-24427-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking all available relief under the FLSA, including recovery of all unlawfully withheld tips, front and back pay, an equal amount in liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The Defendant implemented and enforced a mandatory written Tip Pooling Policy and Agreement ("Tip Pool Agreement") requiring all front-of house Food & Beverage employees to participate in a tip pool and surrender portions of their tips each shift. Rather than distributing pooled tips exclusively among eligible, non-managerial employees as required by the FLSA, Defendant's policy directed a portion of pooled tips to individuals holding supervisory and managerial roles, in direct violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender at One & Only Moonlight Basin from November 6, 2025, through March 24, 2026. The Defendant owns and operates One & Only Moonlight Basin, a luxury resort in Big Sky, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com KING FRESH SEAFOOD: Feng Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Fresh Seafood Market, Inc. d/b/a King Fresh Seafood, et al. The case is styled as Long Feng, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. King Fresh Seafood Market, Inc. d/b/a King Fresh Seafood; Xiaodan Chen a/k/a Xiao Dan Chen; Case No. 812355/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., June 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Commercial - Business Entity." King Fresh Seafood refers to two highly rated, independently owned seafood establishments serving up fresh, cooked-to-order catches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com KURA SUSHI: Settlement Reached in PAGA Wage Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Kura Sushi USA, 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 7, 2026, that a settlement was reached by both parties in the PAGA wage class suit. On December 9, 2024, a former employee filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Company alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes. The plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. In February 2026, the Company reached an agreement to settle the claims for $0.9 million, subject to court approval. The Company expensed $0.9 million related to this settlement within general and administrative expenses in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss during the three months ended February 28, 2026. The Company also recorded an accrued liability of $0.9 million related to this settlement as of May 31, 2026. Kura Sushi USA, Inc. operates a technology-enabled, revolving sushi bar restaurant concept offering authentic Japanese cuisine in the United States. The Company focuses on a combination of Japanese traditions and innovative dining experiences across its growing restaurant footprint. LITTLE CAESAR: Parties Seek to Continue Class Certification Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, DORA MEZA DE CASTILLO, and GLORIA HERNANDEZ on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to continue the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to attend private mediation. The Parties request that the Court continue the motion for class certification hearing to Aug. 25, 2026 A continuance of the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to Aug. 25, 2026, or an alternative date convenient for the Court, will allow the Parties to meaningfully participate in mediation without the burden and expense of simultaneously litigating the class certification motion. If mediation is successful, the Parties will notify the Court promptly, and not later than Aug. 17, 2026, that the matter has settled. If mediation is unsuccessful, the continued hearing would move forward on Aug. 25, 2026, without any further action from the Parties. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8UNhlu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Melissa Grant, Esq. Roxanna Tabatabaeepour, Esq. Ryan P. Tish, Esq. Alexander Wallin, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Roxanna.Taba@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Tish@capstonelawyers.com Alexander.Wallin@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2501 Facsimile: (949) 732-6501 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com LOS ANGELES TIMES: Class Settlement in Mirmalek Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TALIAH MIRMALEK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01797-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement as follows: 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the following Settlement Class: "All persons who accessed LA Times online via website or mobile app in California and had their information collected by tracking technologies between Jan. 31, 2023 to Dec. 19, 2025." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly executed and filed a timely request for exclusion from the class, the list of which is attached to the June 4, 2026 Declaration of Carla Peak; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. 3. The Court appoints Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Taliah Mirmalek as the Class Representative. 4. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court awards Class Counsel total attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $982,700.40. 5. The Court awards $5,000 to the Plaintiff as a service award for her participation in this matter. The Defendant publishes news and journalism content in the media and journalism industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9TxKUy at no extra charge.[CC] LRS HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Denial in Barnes Wage Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM BARNES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LRS HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. H053238 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, affirmed the denial of LRS's motion to compel arbitration. In October 2023, Barnes sued his former employer LRS claiming, on behalf of himself and a putative class of current and former LRS employees, various Labor Code and wage order violations. LRS is an employment staffing agency that places medical professionals in temporary assignments at facilities throughout the country, including California. Barnes, a licensed nurse, worked for LRS as an hourly travel nurse starting in 2021. He performed assignments at several Bay Area hospitals before resigning in September 2023. Barnes asserted ten claims, including failure to pay for hours worked, to pay minimum wage, to pay overtime, to authorize or permit meal and rest breaks, and to reimburse necessary business expenditures. The meal and rest break claims seek civil penalties under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.) (PAGA). Barnes also sought to certify a class of current and former employees. Between 2021 and 2023, Barnes signed several employment-related documents with LRS, including arbitration and service agreements. In 2021, LRS provided Barnes with standardized onboarding documents through an online portal, including a pre-printed arbitration agreement that he could not negotiate. Barnes later signed service agreements in 2022 and 2023, as well as a 2023 Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement that superseded the earlier agreements. LRS moved to compel Barnes to arbitrate his claims and to dismiss his class action claims. The motion was based on the 2023 Dispute Resolution Agreement, but LRS requested in the alternative, if that agreement is unenforceable, enforcement of the 2021 Agreement to Arbitrate. In opposition, Barnes argued that both agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable. The trial court denied LRS's motion, finding that both the 2023 agreements and the earlier 2021-2022 agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It concluded that the 2023 Dispute Resolution Agreement was an adhesion contract with a modest degree of procedural unconscionability and contained several substantively unconscionable provisions, including provisions allowing LRS to seek injunctive relief outside arbitration, waivers of representative PAGA claims and certain administrative remedies, and an indefinite duration. The court declined to sever the challenged provisions, finding that unconscionability permeated the agreements. The trial court also analyzed the 2021-2022 agreements, finding they would apply if the 2023 agreements were unenforceable under the doctrine of novation. Due to the opt-out provision in the 2021 arbitration agreement, the court found only slight procedural unconscionability. However, it determined that the agreements contained several substantively unconscionable provisions, including the injunction provisions in the 2022 Services Agreement, the broad PAGA waiver in the 2021 arbitration agreement, and a third-party provision that unfairly benefited LRS. The court again declined to sever the unconscionable provisions. Finally, the trial court declined to dismiss Barnes's class action claims. LRS timely appealed the trial court's order, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 1294(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of LRS's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss Barnes's class claims, holding that both the 2023 agreements and the 2021-2022 agreements were unconscionable and unenforceable. It found that the 2023 agreements imposed a moderate degree of procedural unconscionability because Barnes was required to accept the adhesion contract as a condition of employment without an opportunity to negotiate or consult counsel. The Court of Appeals also found a high degree of substantive unconscionability based on provisions involving injunctive relief, PAGA waivers, administrative monetary relief waivers, and a one-sided third-party provision. The Court of Appeals concluded that the 2021-2022 agreements contained similar unconscionable provisions, including the injunction provision, PAGA waiver, and third-party provision. Because LRS failed to show that severing the provisions would be in the interests of justice, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly declined to sever them. The Court of Appeals awarded costs on appeal to Barnes. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/M6CjMtozd. LUCERO AG SERVICES: Ortiz Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZUCENA ORTIZ and DOMINGA ESPINOZA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; 559 AG CORP., a California Corporation; PARAGROUP FARMS, INC., a California Corporation; RICARDO ULICES LUCERO-AMBROSIO, an individual; ARTEMIO FIDEL SALAZAR LUNA, an individual; and DOES 1- 20, Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting class certification of the following classes: Global Class: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2019 to the present." Unpaid Piece-Rate Rest Period Subclass (Labor Code section 226.2): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2020 to the present who worked at least one shift of 3 1/2 hours or greater and were not paid for rest periods." Unpaid Nonproductive Work Time Subclass (Labor Code section 226.2): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2020 to the present who were not compensated separately for nonproductive work time." Minimum Wage Subclass (Labor Code sections 1197.1, 1194.2): "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2020 to the present who were not paid at least the minimum wage for their hours worked." Final Wages Subclass: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2020 to the present who were not paid all wages due when they were laid off, discharged or quit as required by the California Labor Code." Violation of Unfair Competition Law Subclass: "All non-exempt agricultural employees employed by farm labor contractor 559 Ag or Lucero Ag Services at Paragroup Farms to harvest blueberries on a piece-rate basis from Sept. 5, 2019 to the present who, due to the violations alleged in the subclasses, were subject to unlawful or unfair business acts or practices." Lucero AG is a farm labor contractor. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P56NcU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Cristina M. Mathews, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-Mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com CMathews@TheMMLawFirm.com Enotices@TheMMLawFirm.com LUCERO AG: Class Cert Hearing in Ortiz Set for Sept. 11 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz et al v. Lucero Ag Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01319 (E.D. Cal, Filed Sept. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order that to better accommodate the Court's schedule, the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification shall be held on Sept. 11, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Oppositions and reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall remained unchanged and shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230. To connect to the hearing via telephone, the parties shall (1 ) dial 1-669-254-5252, (2) enter 161 733 0675 for the meeting ID followed by #, (3) enter # when asked for the participant ID, (4) enter 740484 for the meeting passcode followed by #, and (5) enter *6 to unmute. The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts involving Farmworker Rights. Lucero AG is a farm labor contractor.[CC] MARSDEN CENTRAL: Belmontes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marsden Central L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Javier Valdez Belmontes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Marsden Central L.L.C., Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV015263 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Marsden Central L.L.C. -- https://www.marsden.com/ -- are a full-service provider of Commercial Janitorial, Security, Mechanical Maintenance, Emergency Response, and Facility Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law MARY KAY INC: Carter Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christina Carter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MARY KAY INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-636130 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06570. On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff personally served Defendant a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges the following 18 causes of action against the Plaintiff on behalf of a putative class (for class claims) and aggrieved employees (for claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA")): Unfair Business Practices; Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay and Minimum Wages – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Unlawful Deduction of Wages; Labor Code Section 221 – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Failure to Authorize and Permit Paid Rest Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Third Rest Periods – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Labor Code Sections 201-203; Labor Code Sections 201-203 – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses – Labor Code Section 2802; Labor Code Section 2802 – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Labor Code Section 204 – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; Willful Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004; and Requiring Employees to Agree to Unlawful Terms and Conditions – Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Krista M. Cabrera, Esq. Sara Alexis Levine Abarbanel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858.847.6700 Facsimile: 858.792.6773 Email: kcabrera@foley.com sabarbanel@foley.com MARYLAND: Bid to Modify Operative Scheduling Order OK'd in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON TRIBUE ET AL., v. Maryland Department of State Police, Case No. 8:22-cv-02732-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Hurson entered a judgment that the State's motion for modification of the operative scheduling order is granted in part and denied in part, and the Plaintiffs' motion is denied except insofar as it is construed as a motion for the intervention of non-party Wing "Eric" Tong. The Court concludes that the State has persuasively explained why the deadlines in the operative scheduling order cannot reasonably be met despite its diligence in litigating this matter. However, the Court is also sympathetic to Plaintiffs' concerns about how long this action has been pending. Accordingly, the Court will forge a middle path and adopt the following schedule: Sept. 21, 2026: The Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures Oct. 19, 2026: The Defendant's Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures Oct. 30, 2026: The Plaintiffs' rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures Nov. 6, 2026: Requests for admission Nov. 16, 2026: Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation of disclosures and responses Nov. 30, 2026: Discovery deadline; submission of status report Dec. 14, 2026: Class certification motion deadline Jan. 11, 2027: Dispositive pretrial motions deadline Despite the fact that this motion appears to be premature since it is filed prior to the class certification stage, the Court ultimately agrees that it may be the case that the current named Plaintiffs do not adequately represent the interests of putative class members for the reason indicated by the State. Under those circumstances, it appears proper that the Court analyze whether Rule 24 compels and/or allows Tong's intervention. The Plaintiffs allege employment discrimination based on race. The Defendant provides statewide law enforcement, public safety, and emergency support to Maryland's residents and visitors. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXTg89 at no extra charge.[CC] MEMPHIS, TN: Court Stays Discovery in Kiner Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALD KINER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated MLGW ratepayers, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIVISION (MLGW), JOHN DOES (1-10), Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-BCL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Pham entered an order granting City of Memphis's motions for extension of time and motion to stay, and denying the Plaintiff Gerald Kiner's motion to strike. The court finds that all factors weigh in favor of staying discovery, as the dispositive motions are fully briefed and no party will be prejudiced by a discovery stay. While Kiner may disagree with the arguments raised in the Motion to Dismiss, his disagreement does not justify striking the motion. As for the remaining arguments raised in Kiner's motion to strike, those arguments are likewise plainly without merit. Therefore, the motion to strike is denied. The instant complaint was filed by Gerald Kiner on October 29, 2025. The complaint is over 36 pages long and includes another 100-plus pages of exhibits. The complaint is difficult to understand, but as best as the court can tell, Kiner is attempting to bring a class action on behalf of all Memphis and Shelby County ratepayers and taxpayers "who have suffered financial injury from the Defendants' ongoing fraudulent and unconstitutional conduct, including systematic overbilling, misuse of public funds, and concealment of fiscal irregularities within the City of Memphis and its division, Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW)." Memphis is a city on the Mississippi River in southwest Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SbFQMC at no extra charge.[CC] MERCADIEN P.C.: Berry Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------------- Russell Berry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCADIEN, P.C., CPAS, and ORRSTOWN BANK, Case No. 1:26-cv-01803-JFS (M.D. Pa., June 29, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard personally identifying information ("PII"), including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license/Government ID numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account information, usernames and passwords, IRS pin numbers, and payment card information, compromised in a data breach involving Mercadien's information systems. The data breach impacted approximately 402,741 individuals. Of those individuals, approximately 83,938 were Orrstown customers and clients whose PII Orrs town provided to Mercadien and whose PII was compromised in connection with the breach, including Plaintiff and Class members. Despite discovering the Data Breach in early November 2025, Mercadien did not notify Orrstown until approximately May 21, 2026. Despite learning of the Data Breach on May 21, 2026, Orrstown did not begin notifying affected individuals until June 11, 2026--nearly nine months after the Data Breach concluded and three weeks after Orrstown was notified. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to, or sharing PII with third parties that failed to, implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiffs and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided his PII to Orrstown. Mercadien is a certified public accounting and financial advisory firm that provides tax, audit, compliance, and advisory services to privately owned businesses, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, govemment entities, and individuals and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: tgraden@ktmc.com - and - Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.621.2000 Fax: 312.641.5504 Email: b.bamow@bamowlaw.com aparkhill@bamowlaw.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Fax: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com MERCEDES BENZ: Settlement in Hazdovac Suit Gets Final OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Seeborg entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement class, and award of attorneys' fees, costs and incentive fees. -- The following Settlement Class is certified: "All Persons who purchased or leased Mercedes-Benz vehicles between model year 2015 and the present that are covered by an HPP Warranty." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: a) Persons who have settled with, released, or otherwise had claims adjudicated on the merits for or against the Defendant or any Released Party that are substantially similar to the Litigation Claims (i.e., alleging that that the Defendant or the Released Parties did not identify the Subject Parts as "high-cost emissions warranty parts" under California's emissions warranty requirements and covered under the HPP Warranty); b) the Defendant and its officers, directors and employees, as well as their corporate affiliates and the corporate affiliates' officers, directors and employees; c) Counsel to any of the parties; d) Judge Richard Seeborg, any district court or appellate judge later assigned to this matter, the Mediator, and members of their respective immediate families; e) Governmental entities; and, f) Persons who properly elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class. -- Cory Hazdovac is appointed as Settlement Class Representative. -- The Court awards Attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $2,812,500 to Class Counsel. Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vjFzM5 at no extra charge.[CC] MERRICK BANK: 3d Cir. Affirms Arbitration Order in Glover FCRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBORAH GLOVER, Appellant, v. MERRICK BANK, Case No. 25-2120 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Merrick's motion to compel arbitration. On February 7, 2014, Glover applied for and received a Merrick credit card. Merrick provided her with a Cardholder Agreement governing the account, which Glover accepted by using the card. The agreement included an arbitration provision with a bolded, all-caps class action waiver. Over the next two years, Glover accumulated an unpaid credit card balance of $1,350.87. Merrick charged off the account on January 31, 2016, and later assigned the debt to N.A.R., Inc., a debt collector. More than eight years later, Glover filed a class action against Merrick under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging that Merrick improperly accessed her credit report in 2022 without consent or a lawful purpose. After Merrick removed the case to federal court, it moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The district court granted Merrick's motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitrability was apparent from the complaint and applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard instead of allowing discovery on arbitrability. It held that Glover's FCRA claims fell within the scope of the Cardholder Agreement's arbitration provision, dismissed her class claims, and compelled arbitration of her individual claims. Glover timely appealed the order compelling arbitration, arguing that the district court improperly applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard instead of the Rule 56 standard and erred by denying her request for limited discovery on arbitrability. The Third Circuit held that the Rule 56 standard applied because arbitrability was not apparent from the face of Glover's complaint. The complaint did not reference the Cardholder Agreement, attach it, or rely on its arbitration provision. However, because Glover did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement or its arbitration provision, limited discovery was unnecessary. The Third Circuit next held that Glover's FCRA claims fell within the scope of the Cardholder Agreement's arbitration provision. Applying Utah law under the agreement's choice-of-law provision, it found that the arbitration clause broadly and unambiguously covered claims related to the parties' relationship. Because Glover's claims depended on her relationship with Merrick, they were subject to arbitration. Because Glover's FCRA claims were within the scope of the arbitration provision, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/nFkBd1O2w META PLATFORMS: Court Extends Sealing Deadlines in Odumosu ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLADEJI ODUMOSU, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-04501-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the stipulation to extend sealing deadlines as follows: -- Meta's sealing papers for the Motion and the plaintiff's accompanying class expert reports shall be due on July 9, 2026; -- Meta shall file its Opposition to the Motion and Meta's accompanying class expert reports provisionally under seal in their entirety on Sept. 10, 2026, as well as a 1-page interim sealing motion indicating that narrowed redactions and reasons for sealing will be discussed in depth in a forthcoming motion; -- The Parties shall file sealing papers and updated versions of Meta's Opposition and Meta's accompanying class expert reports with narrowly tailored redactions on Oct. 1, 2026; -- The Plaintiff shall file the Reply and the plaintiff's accompanying class expert reports provisionally under seal in their entirety on Oct. 12, 2026, as well as a 1-page interim sealing motion indicating that narrowed redactions and reasons for sealing will be discussed in depth in a forthcoming motion; -- The Parties shall file sealing papers and updated versions of the plaintiff's reply and the plaintiff's accompanying class expert reports with narrowly tailored redactions on Nov. 2, 2026. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y1nDoH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com META PLATFORMS: Starzinski Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Starzinski, et al., v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-04501-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move for class certification of the following class and subclass: 1. All persons in the United States who, from Jan. 1, 2022 to and through the date that class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a subscription to ESPN+ and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the ads_pixel_traffic table stored in Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Hive database showing their videoviewing behavior on ESPN+ (the "Class"). 2. All persons in the California who, from Jan. 1, 2022 to and through the date that class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a subscription to ESPN+ and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the ads_pixel_traffic table stored in Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Hive database showing their video-viewing behavior on ESPN+ (the "Subclass"). Excluded from the proposed Class and Subclass defined above are the Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. and any entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant's agents and employees, the judge to whom this action is assigned, members of the judge's staff, and the judge's immediate family. The Defendant is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MMmFg7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Walenga Seeks Refund of IEEPA Tariff Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WALENGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01115 (E.D. Wis., June 23, 2026) arises from Milwaukee's retention of profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). The complaint relates that beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. U.S. importers including Milwaukee responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. Milwaukee raised prices on Milwaukee-branded products, including, M12/M18 cordless tools and lithium‑ion batteries as a result of the IEEPA tariffs. In January 2026, Milwaukee filed suit against the United States and U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs paid on Milwaukee imports. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the IEEPA-based tariffs were unlawful. As a consequence of that decision, importers who paid those tariffs, including Milwaukee, became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to CBP. The complaint points out that Milwaukee collected tariffs from consumers through increased prices on its products, while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. Milwaukee stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds. Milwaukee has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related surcharges to the consumers who actually paid them, it asserts. Plaintiff Walenga purchased Milwaukee 18V Lithium-Ion Brushless Cordless Handheld Blower from Home Depot. Plaintiff Walenga paid retail prices for those goods that were increased by Milwaukee's tariff surcharge to account for the tariffs imposed on imported products. Plaintiff Walenga would not have paid those higher prices, absent the unlawful tariffs and Milwaukee's pass-through of those tariffs to consumers, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Milwaukee during the Class Period and who paid tariff surcharges reflecting Milwaukee's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Plaintiff Matthew Walenga is a resident and citizen of Peotone, Illinois. Plaintiff Walenga purchased goods from Milwaukee that were subject to increased prices from the IEEPA tariffs. Defendant Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of professional-grade power tools, cordless tool systems, batteries, and related equipment in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole A. Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866.252.0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Remove Certain Exhibit from Public Record ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLEXSENAL INC. and MASTER FACTOR MARKETING INC., v. MOBIUSPAY INC., NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT SERVICES, MERRICK BANK, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:24-cv-02582-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte application to remove and replace "Exhibit D" in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, from the public record because certain portions of the document contains personal information. The Defendants request that the Court permit the filing of a fully redacted version of "Exhibit D" in place of the unredacted version. After the filing of the docket entry, the Defendants discovered certain information designated as Confidential was inadvertently filed publicly and/or unredacted. After discovering this issue, the Defendants immediately contacted the Central District of California CM/ECF helpdesk and this Court for the removal and replacement of such document. Good cause justifies removal and replacement of the above document to protect confidential and personal information. MobiusPay is an online merchant processing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N2LRyA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara Croutch, Esq. Lawren A. Zann, Esq. Naira M. Castilhos, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 776-3130 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 E-mail: barbara.croutch@gmlaw.com lawren.zann@gmlaw.com naira.castilhos@gmlaw.com MOBIUSPAY INC: Seeks to Strike Musante Declaration -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLEXSENAL INC. and MASTER FACTOR MARKETING INC., v. MOBIUSPAY INC., NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT SERVICES, MERRICK BANK CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:24-cv-02582-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking and excluding the declaration of Ken Musante filed in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and to disregard all references to Musante's opinions throughout the Plaintiffs' motion and supporting papers. This Motion is made on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs failed to serve a written expert report conforming to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and to do so before the Court's deadline and, instead, submitted a bare declaration that does not comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 26; (2) this procedural failure prejudices the Defendants by depriving them of the expert report disclosures to which they are entitled and pursuant to which they can impeach and oppose; (3) the submission of the Musante Declaration as an exhibit to the class certification motion without prior disclosure prejudices the Defendants by depriving them of the time necessary to engage a rebuttal expert; and (4) the failure to comply with requirements under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires exclusion of Musante's opinions pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. MobiusPay is an online merchant processing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ohf0Bk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara Croutch, Esq. Lawren A. Zann, Esq. Naira M. Castilhos, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 776-3130 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 E-mail: barbara.croutch@gmlaw.com lawren.zann@gmlaw.com naira.castilhos@gmlaw.com MONROE UNIVERSITY: Williams Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monroe University, LTD. The case is styled as Chauncey Williams, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Monroe University, LTD., Case No. 66925/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Monroe University -- https://www.monroeu.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York NY 10007 Phone: (516) JUSTICE MONSANTO COMPANY: Vanweerdhuizen Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darrel Vanweerdhuizen, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Betsy Vanweerdhuizen; and others similalr situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY; Case No. 2:26-cv-01937 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06489-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Injury - Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry G. Jones, Esq. Colleen Durkin Peterson, Esq. FRIEDMAN | RUBIN PLLP 1109 1st Avenue, Suite 501 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-501-4446 Fax: 206-623-0794 Email: hjones@friedmanrubin.com cdp@friedmanrubin.com MOSAIC CO: Conspires to Fix NPK Fertilizer Prices, Johnson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE JOHNSON and LISA MARIE JOHNSON, d/b/a STEVE JOHNSON FARM; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDING, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-01186-EFM-BGS (W.D. Mo., May 4, 2026) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) fertilizers ("NPK Fertilizers") from January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease. The complaint relates that the Defendants' coordinated scheme has caused American farmers, agricultural cooperatives, and other purchasers throughout the fertilizer supply chain to pay artificially inflated prices for the essential crop nutrients upon which modern agriculture depends. Defendants' conspiracy was facilitated and concealed by the highly concentrated structure of the NPK Fertilizer market. The commodity nature of NPK Fertilizers, high barriers to entry, highly inelastic demand, and Defendants' extensive overlapping memberships on the boards and committees of shared industry trade associations created conditions uniquely susceptible to coordinated anticompetitive conduct. Defendants also shared competitively sensitive pricing, production, and sales information through joint ventures and export marketing arrangements that would otherwise remain confidential, says the complaint. The Defendants' violations of the antitrust laws have caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class to pay higher prices for NPK Fertilizers than they would have in the absence of Defendants' conspiracies, and, as a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered damages in the form of overcharges paid on their NPK Fertilizers purchases, the complaint asserts. This is an injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish and prevent. Defendants' price fixing agreements are per se unlawful, or, alternatively, are unlawful under either a quick look or rule of reason analysis, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased NPK Fertilizers directly from one or more Defendants. They seek damages, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits for injuries sustained as a result of Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the common law of unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs Steve Johnson and Lisa Marie Johnson are citizens and residents of Missouri, doing business as Steve Johnson Farm and operating in the state of Missouri. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs purchased NPK Fertilizers directly from Defendant Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. for end use. Defendants are direct competitors and are the largest producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Steve N. Six, Esq. Caleb Wagner, Esq. Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com six@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. Jack A. Downing, Esq. Dan R. Ritter, Esq. GRAY RITTER GRAHAM 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: 314-241-5620 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com jdowning@grgpc.com dritter@grgpc.com - and - Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75thStreet Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Anny Marie Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com amartin@rgrdlaw.com - and - Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq. Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: xanb@rgrdlaw.com ashingler@rgrdlaw.com MOZAR INTERIORS: Sanchez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sonny Francisco Romero Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. MOZAR INTERIORS LLC MOZAR GROUP LLC LAKEWOOD INTERIORS LLC DODI OLDAK MOSHE GERSTLE, Case No. 3:26-cv-07834 (D.N.J, June 26, 2026), is brought seeking damages for failure to comply with the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJSWHL"). The Defendants repeatedly and systemically failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other employees. The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime and was not getting paid properly. The Plaintiff was paid two separate checks under a different name instead of paying overtime properly. The Defendant stopped paying Plaintiff from on or about March 9, 2026. The Plaintiff was paid $25 per hour. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime wages. the Plaintiff, FLSA Overtime Collective Members. and NJ Class members remain uncompensated for overtime wages, and they are entitled to damages under the FLSA and New Jersey law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a lead worker since the winter of 2024 up to April 2, 2026 The Defendants operate an interior design shop in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC 426 Main St, #201 Spotswood, NJ, 08884 Phone: 718-808-2224 Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com MR. COOPER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 3 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the unopposed motion to modify class certification scheduling order. The Class Certification Scheduling Order is modified as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for Defendants to serve Sept. 3, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification on the Plaintiffs (and any expert reports in support thereof): Class certification discovery closes: Sept. 25, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve Nov. 2, 2026 reply in support of class certification (and any rebuttal experts in support thereof): Class certification briefing submission Nov. 23, 2026. date: Mr. Cooper provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cLscbC at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. ("NFI"), et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered a judgment denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The plaintiffs' asserted class definition ignores Judge Pascal's Aug. 19, 2024 opinion and order and prejudicially seeks to expand the class definition after the deadline to amend. The Court will thus deny plaintiffs' motion to certify the class as defined in their moving papers. The Plaintiffs' proposed order seeks to certify a class of: "All individuals who contracted with NFI to provide delivery services in Illinois between Aug. 10, 2011, and the present, who made deliveries for NFI personally full-time and who were classified as independent contractors." National Freight provides logistics services. A copy of the Court's opinion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkTX1k at no extra charge.[CC] NCAA: Class Settlement in Brantmeier Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REESE BRANTMEIER and MAYA JOINT, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA), Case No. 1:24-cv-00238-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Eagles entered an order that: 1. The motion for preliminary approval is granted. 2. The Court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement agreement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Fairness Hearing, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The Court appoints RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, the notice administrator, as the settlement and claims administrator. 4. The parties shall file a motion for final approval of class action settlement no later than Nov. 30, 2026. The motion or its attachments shall address any objections. 5. The plaintiffs shall file their motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards by Dec. 11, 2026. 6. A fairness hearing will be held before Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles on Jan. 8, 2027, at 9:30 am. This case is an antitrust suit against the NCAA about its eligibility rules for college athletics. It involves NCAA rules restricting Division I college tennis eligibility based on acceptance of unauthorized outside prize money before and after college enrollment. Before the settlement, the Court certified two classes: a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class and a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CKZX2s at no extra charge.[CC] NEBULA GENOMICS: Continues to Defend Portillo GIPA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ProPhase Labs, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form A, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2026, that the Company's subsidiary, Nebula Genomics Inc., continues to defend itself from the Portillo GIPA class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A putative class action lawsuit, Portillo v. Nebula Genomics, Inc., was filed in October 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Illinois GIPA, alleging that Nebula improperly shared customers genetic information with third parties without written consent and naming Nebula along with Meta Platforms, Google, and Microsoft as defendants. The dispute was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in accordance with Nebula's Terms of Use, which mandated that claims be brought in Massachusetts. The complaint remains at the pleading stage, and in addition to obtaining the change of venue, Nebula has filed a motion to dismiss. While the allegations raise reputational and legal risks, no judgment or settlement has been entered in the action, and potential liability is not reasonably estimable at this time. Management therefore does not consider this litigation to be material to the consolidated financial statements as of the date of this prospectus. ProPhase Labs, Inc. is a diversified diagnostics, genomics, and consumer healthcare company engaged in developing, manufacturing, and marketing over-the-counter health products and diagnostic services. The company operates through multiple subsidiaries focused on lab services, genomics testing, and branded consumer health products. NEW HOPE: Ware Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- CHRYSTALIA WARE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW HOPE COMMUNITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05267 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2026) is a class action and a collective action to remedy Defendants' violations of federal and New York state wage-and-hour laws. The complaint relates that the Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as hourly non-exempt workers. Defendants continue to employ workers throughout the United States and in New York. Plaintiff's job required them to assist residents with dressing, showering, using the toilet, taking medication, cooking, cleaning, laundry, doctors' appointments, and working toward learning goals, as well as performing other ongoing services, balancing in-house financials, filling out paperwork, and creating documentation of all tasks. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff regularly worked overtime and was not compensated for all hours worked. The Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without proper pay, inter alia, including substantial overtime work. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members were entitled to receive minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked and that they were not receiving minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked, it adds. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to recover unpaid wages on behalf of FLSA Collective Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover unpaid compensation on behalf of Class Members pursuant to the New York labor law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Plaintiff Chrystalia Ware was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at the Loch Sheldrake, New York location, as a Direct Support Professional and Direct Support Professional II from April 2023 to May 2025. Defendant New Hope Community , Inc. operates a not-for-profit enterprise focused on supporting people with developmental disabilities in residential facilities in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Miri Trauner, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com m.trauner@calljustice.com NEW WORLD: Class Certification in Breedlove Condo Fire Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, New World Condominium Apartments Condominium Association, Inc., etc., Appellant, v. Lawonda Breedlove, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D25-0854 (Fla. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed the trial court's order granting class certification. Appellant New World appeals the trial court's order granting class certification to a class of tenants and occupants of units at the New World Condominium, who were displaced by a fire that destroyed the condominium on January 28, 2023. The Class alleges that New World's failure to maintain the condominium's common elements caused the January 28, 2023 fire, which displaced residents and destroyed their personal property. The Plaintiffs seek damages for relocation expenses and property losses. In April 2025, the trial court granted the amended motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of "all tenants and others who lawfully resided in a condominium unit at New World Condo on January 28, 2023." New World timely appealed the class certification order. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class because the class definition used objective criteria that made class membership readily ascertainable. New World argued that the proposed class definition lacked objective criteria and would require individualized inquiries to determine class membership. The District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the class was adequately defined because it identified a specific group of people affected at a particular place, during a defined time, and by a single event. New World also argued that the terms "tenant" and "lawfully resided" were ambiguous and made the class definition unworkable. The District Court of Appeal rejected that argument, concluding that the terms have common, legally recognized meanings and that the class definition provides objective criteria sufficient to ascertain class membership. While affirming the trial court's findings on the remaining class certification requirements without further discussion, the District Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class under its proposed definition. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/lmSlStu7X. Kubicki Draper, and Barbara E. Fox -- bf@kubickidraper.com -- for appellant. Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Dwayne Robinson -- drobinson@kttlaw.com -- and Abe Andrew Bailey -- abailey@kttlaw.com -- for appellees. NEW YORK, NY: Parties Must Submit Status Report by July 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis et al., v. The New York City Department of Correction et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08428-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kaplan entered an order that the stay in this matter shall remain in effect until and including July 17, 2026. The parties shall submit a status report no later than July 17, 2026, stating whether a resolution of the putative class claims has been achieved. Absent resolution, the stay will be lifted, and the parties, in their status report, shall submit a proposed briefing schedule for the outstanding motion for class certification in light of the pending motion to intervene and the ongoing proceedings in Lewis v. City of New York, No. 23-cv-9640 (DLC)(JW). The Department provides for the care and custody of people ordered to be held by the courts and awaiting trial or who are convicted and sentenced. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UrRzqB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Teszler, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0872 NICK LAMB: Hewitt Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Micah Donald Hewitt (PRO SE), on their own Behalf and those similarly situated, V. Nick Lamb, Joseph Roemmich, Sheldon Hofer, Dara Alvand, Michelle Evans, Rick Johnston, Aaron Haynes, Desirae Kummer, Amber Pirgglia, Cierra Revobrio, Melissa Maturan, Michael Lee, Case No. 4:26-cv-04087-ECS (D.S.D.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the proposed class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Civil Rule 23.1. The Plaintiffs define the class as follows: "All presently incarcerated within the South Dakota Department of Corrections." The claim of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class because each named plaintiff is presently a prisoner in the South Dakota Department of Corrections, or will be in the future, and therefore has been or will be denied protections of the Eighth Amendment. The Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action for injunctive and declaratory relief on May 1 12026, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. sections 1983 and 1988 and 22 U.S.C.A. section 2201 et seq., for violations of the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RIC7Hc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NICOLET NATIONAL: Dismissal of Klimek NSF Fee Suit Upheld on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN KLIMEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, PATRICIA KOPELKE AND DARIEN FITTING, Plaintiffs, v. NICOLET NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Respondent, Appeal No. 2024AP1615 (Wis. App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, affirmed the order of the circuit court granting Nicolet National Bank's motion to dismiss Klimek's complaint. Klimek filed a putative class action against Nicolet, alleging breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the bank's assessment of multiple nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees. Although Klimek did not challenge the initial $35 NSF fee, he alleged that Nicolet improperly charged a second $35 fee when a merchant resubmitted the same payment request without his authorization after his account still lacked sufficient funds. Klimek attached Nicolet's Deposit Account Terms and Conditions and Fee Schedule to his amended complaint, alleging that the contract authorized only one NSF fee for a single payment transaction. He claimed that the bank improperly charged a second NSF fee when the merchant resubmitted the same payment request because the transaction remained the same "item" under the contract. Nicolet moved to dismiss, arguing that the account agreement permitted an NSF fee each time an item was presented for payment against insufficient funds, including a resubmitted payment request. Klimek responded that a resubmitted request remained the same "item" under the contract and, at a minimum, that the term "item" was ambiguous, making dismissal inappropriate. The circuit court granted Nicolet's motion to dismiss, holding that the account agreement unambiguously permitted the bank to charge a $35 NSF fee each time an item was presented for payment, including repeated presentments of the same transaction. After that ruling, Klimek conceded that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was moot, and the court dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal, Klimek argued that the contract either prohibited multiple NSF fees for the same item or was ambiguous on that issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the account agreement unambiguously authorized Nicolet to charge an NSF fee each time a payment request was presented against an account with insufficient funds, even if it involved the same underlying transaction. Reading the contract as a whole, the Court concluded that the undefined term "item" was not ambiguous and that each presentment, rather than the underlying transaction itself, triggered a separate fee. Accordingly, Nicolet did not breach the agreement by assessing a second NSF fee. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/4QykNNcWR NORTH CAROLINA: OAH Jurisdiction Dismissal in Lemaster Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD D. LEMASTER, JR., Petitioner, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TREASURER, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION, Respondent, Case No. COA25-929 (N.C. App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the May 28, 2025 order of the Union County Superior Court, which upheld an administrative law judge's final decision dismissing Lemaster's petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This case arises from the Retirement Systems Division's final agency decision denying Lemaster's request to repurchase 7.3 years of pension service credit under the repurchase formula in effect when he vested in the retirement system, rather than under the formula in effect when he sought the repurchase calculation in 2023. The Petitioner began teaching in 1996 and became a member of the Teachers' and State Employees' Retirement System (TSERS). After leaving his teaching position, he withdrew 7.3 years of retirement service credit. He returned to teaching in 2011 and rejoined TSERS. In 2018, the Petitioner contacted TSERS about repurchasing his 7.3 years of service credit. A TSERS employee advised him that many employees waited until retirement to repurchase service and that the cost would increase by 6.5% annually. The Petitioner chose not to repurchase the service then, believing his investments would perform better. TSERS estimated the repurchase cost at $33,790.66 in 2018 and $36,012.05 in 2019. In June 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly repealed the statute governing the repurchase of retirement service credit, effective July 1, 2022. The new law changed the method for calculating repurchase costs and limited members to repurchasing no more than five years of service. In 2023, the Petitioner requested a new repurchase calculation and was informed that, under the revised law, he could repurchase no more than five years of service at a cost of $51,660.83. After seeking administrative review, the Retirement Systems Division issued a final agency decision on June 11, 2024, affirming that determination. On August 6, 2024, the Petitioner filed a contested case with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), challenging the final agency decision and asserting claims including breach of contract, constitutional violations, and declaratory relief. After the Respondent moved to dismiss, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims and dismissed the petition without prejudice. The Petitioner appealed the ALJ's dismissal to the superior court. On May 28, 2025, the superior court affirmed, concluding that the OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all of the Petitioner's claims. The Petitioner timely appealed the superior court's order, arguing that it erred in affirming the ALJ's decision. Because the Petitioner limited his appeal to his claim that the Retirement Systems Division failed to apply the applicable law, the Court of Appeals limited its review to that issue. The Court of Appeals concluded that the OAH lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the Petitioner's claim and affirmed the superior court's order. It held that the OAH has no authority to decide constitutional challenges to statutes, as judicial review is reserved to the courts. Accordingly, it affirmed the dismissal of the Petitioner's petition without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/6QkhLXOvn. Schiller & Schiller, PLLC, by David G. Schiller -- david@schillerfirm.com -- for petitioner-appellant. Attorney General Jeff Jackson -- info@jeffjacksonnc.com -- by Assistant Attorney General Natalia Isenberg, for respondent-appellee. NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS: Buliga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Buliga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY (d/b/a NICOR GAS COMPANY), an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-07581 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (the "IMWL"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned Premium Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees are entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant has failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Premium Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As a result of its prima facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Operations Mechanic. The Defendant is headquartered in Naperville, Illinois, and employs thousands of Hourly Employees throughout the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com NUDERMA LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. NUDERMA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5256 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://hudsonvalleyskincare.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 7, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Coconut Vanilla Goat-To Body Lotion from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MILTON WILLIAMS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant NUDERMA LLC operates the Hudson Valley Skin Care online retail store, as well as the Hudson Valley Skin Care interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: skincare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ONCOURSE HOME: Jay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Charmaine Jay, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ONCOURSE HOME SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company and AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-07454 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2026), to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), and common law. The Defendants failed to compensate its CSRs, like Plaintiff, for all work performed. Instead, Defendants required its CSRs to perform compensable work before and after their scheduled shifts when they are not clocked into Defendants' timekeeping system. This corporate policy and practice resulted in CSRs not being paid for all time worked. The Defendants, through its managers, had actual and constructive knowledge that its CSRs were completing this off-the-clock work without compensation. Nevertheless, Defendants suffered or permitted, and in fact, trained and required, its CSRs to complete this unpaid work. The Defendants' CSRs were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a customer service sales advocate for Defendant from April 2019 through April 2025. The Defendants provide customized home warranty protection plans and on-demand repair services designed to cover essential utility lines (water and sewer), home systems, and major appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4050 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Antonio Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware stock corporation; DAVID CRUZ, an individual; ITZEL RODRIGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14616 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03587. The Complaint asserts the following putative class claims: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony G. Ly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: aly@littler.com - and - Sophia B. Collins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: scollins@littler.com PENTAGON FEDERAL: Boczek Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Boczek, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union d/b/a PENFED, Case No. CC-24-02026-C-96 was removed from the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on June 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00074-TSK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Pentagon Federal Credit Union doing business as PenFed -- https://www.penfed.org/ -- is one of the nation's leading federal credit unions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason E. Causey, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. KATZ KANTOR STONESTREET & BUCKNER PLLC 206 S Walker Street Princeton, WV 24740 Phone: (304) 431-4050 Fax: (304) 431-4060 Email: jcausey@kksblaw.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian J. Moore, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP - CHARLESTON PO Box 11887 Charleston, WV 25339-1887 Phone: (304) 357-0900 Fax: (304) 357-0919 Email: brian.moore@dinslaw.com - and - Kinsey Novak Booth, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 191 W. Nationwide Blvd., Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (304) 225-1416 Email: kinsey.booth@dinsmore.com - and - Michael A. Graziano, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 659-6671 Fax: (202) 659-6699 Email: mgraziano@eckertseamans.com PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Lurry Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKETRIUS LURRY, et al., v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00297-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, and for attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative service awards. The Court orders as follows: 1. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal incorporates by reference the definitions in the Settlement Agreement, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the same meanings as in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1715, have been satisfied. 3. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Class, defined as follows, meets the requirements for certification for purposes of entry of judgment: "All living persons in the United States who were provided notice of the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are All persons who are directors and officers of the Defendant, governmental entities, anyone who validly and timely opts out of the Settlement, and the judge(s) assigned to the Action, the Judge's immediate family, and Court staff. 4. Except as to any individual claim of those Persons who have validly and timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class ("Opt-Outs"), the Action and all claims contained therein, as well as all of the Released Claims, against Defendant and the Released Parties by the Releasing Parties are dismissed with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement and the orders of this Court 5. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and finds that their request for $3,481,750.00 in fees, from which $1,740,750.00, is payable from the Settlement Fund and $1,741,000.00 payable directly by PharMerica, separate and apart from the Settlement Fund plus $88,328.16 in reimbursement for litigation costs is reasonable and is granted. 6. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' request for Service Awards in the amount of $3,500 each is reasonable and is granted. The Settlement Agreement creates two funds: a Settlement Fund and a Claims-Made Fund. First, PharMerica shall pay $5,275,000.00 into a non-reversionary fund (the "Settlement Fund"). In addition to the Settlement Fund, PharMerica will pay claims for documented out-of-pocket expenses up to $10,000 per Class Member and one year of Kroll Complete Monitoring on a claims-made basis (the "Claims-Made Fund"). PharMerica is a pharmacy services provider for various healthcare facilities and programs nationwide. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fHPMbs at no extra charge.[CC] PREMIUM MERCHANT: Cardosa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tyler Cardosa, Abraham Cohen, Jorge Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC; SAM LALLOUZ; and all other related entities and individuals, Case No. 1:26-cv-05429 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA"), as well as the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") brought on behalf of employees of Defendants that performed work without proper wage and commission compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. The Defendants improperly treated Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements by misclassifying them as independent contractors and compensating them primarily or solely on a commission basis. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without receiving lawful overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs frequently worked long hours, including work weeks exceeding forty hours, without receiving lawful minimum wages or overtime compensation for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers were not properly compensated for many of the hours they worked, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the implementing regulations of the Miscellaneous Wage Order, including by Defendants' practice of compensating workers solely through commissions without ensuring compliance with minimum wage and overtime requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC is an alternative financing company that services nontraditional funding solutions to small business owners, including merchant cash advances, working capital loans, lines of credit, equipment financing, and SBA-related financing products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 134 Mineola Blvd, 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516.873.9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com PREMIUM PARTS: Benson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Benson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PREMIUM PARTS WHOLESALE LTD. d/b/a A PREMIUM AUTOPARTS, Case No. 1:26-cv-05498 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website, www.a-premium.com, in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to revise its digital policies and practices to ensure that its website is--and remains--fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. The Plaintiff remains committed to maintaining an assistive technology regimen that supports his independence. Without remediation of the barriers described herein, he will continue to be excluded from accessing Defendant's goods and services on equal terms. The Defendant's ongoing failure to provide accessible digital services constitutes a denial of full and equal access under Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a permanent injunction compelling Defendant to bring its website into compliance with federal accessibility standards. This action arises under the ADA, challenging Defendant's operation of a public-facing website that denies blind and visually impaired individuals full and equal access. The Plaintiff, a totally blind resident of this District, attempted to access Defendant's website using screen-reading software but encountered multiple access barriers that prevented meaningful engagement with its services. Defendant's failure to design and maintain its website in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) constitutes unlawful discrimination and violates federal accessibility standards, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a totally blind consumer residing in New York County. Premium Parts Wholesale Ltd. d/b/a A-Premium Autoparts is a business entity operating the website www.a-premium.com, a nationwide e-commerce platform offering aftermarket automotive replacement parts and accessories to consumers across the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Hessler Case Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY HESSLER, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-06192-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order granting Hessler's motion to remand case to Pierce County superior court. Hessler persuasively argues Progressive's December 2025 removal was untimely. He contends the claims summary he furnished to Progressive in May 2024 triggered the 30-day window under section 1446(b)(3). Although Progressive suggests the document was "indeterminate" with respect to removability, it stops short of explaining why that was the case. Moreover, the Court finds it curious that Progressive stipulated in September 2025 to extending the class certification deadline, and then had Berg include the following months' claims data in his analysis. Progressive does not justify, or even mention, the agreed extension in its response. The Court is hard pressed to accept that the updated claims data constituted a change in circumstance or newly discovered facts warranting a second removal, particularly when it appears to have been made possible by the convenient timing of Berg's investigation. And even accounting for claims up to November 2025, Progressive's alleged amount in controversy barely reaches $5 million. Although Progressive's conduct suggests gamesmanship, the Court declines to award attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of removal. This is a putative class action challenging defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company's underinsured motorist property damage (UMPD) policy coverage. Hessler first filed this suit in Pierce County superior court in October 2022. Progressive is an American auto, home, and commercial insurer founded in 1937. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hnrr6P at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM: Kuzminova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Providence Health System-Southern California. The case is styled as Maria Kuzminova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Providence Health System-Southern California, Case No. 26STCV20436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Providence in Southern California -- https://www.providence.org/ -- is a not-for-profit network of hospitals, physicians, clinics, home health services, and affiliated health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Blvd., Ste. 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6251 Phone: 310-553-5533 Fax: 310-553-5536 Email: jft@stonebrooklaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit Upheld on Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: QUEST DIAGNOSTICS ERISA LITIGATION. LAWANDA LASHA HOUSE JOHNSON, individually & as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, & on behalf of the Profit Sharing Plan of Quest Diagnostics, Inc.; REBECCA A. RICE; SHALAMAR CURTIS, Appellants, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC. BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 24-2866 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment for Quest. Quest Diagnostics, a provider of clinical laboratory testing and related services, allows its employees to contribute to a 401(k) defined-contribution retirement plan, with investment options selected by the plan's managers. Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Quest's Investment Committee served as a fiduciary for the 401(k) plan participants. The Committee met quarterly, retained Mercer Investment Consulting and AON Investment Consulting as investment advisors, and adopted Investment Policy Statements outlining factors for evaluating, adding, or removing investment options, with no single factor controlling the decision. Dissatisfied with the performance of their Quest 401(k) accounts, the Plaintiffs filed this class action alleging that the Plan and its managers breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to offer two investment options: the Fidelity Freedom Funds and the Invesco Global Real Estate Fund. The Invesco Fund is an actively managed mutual fund focused primarily on real estate investment trusts, while the Fidelity Freedom Funds are actively managed target-date funds designed to adjust their asset allocation as investors approach and move through retirement. The Plaintiffs alleged that Quest breached its fiduciary duty by continuing to offer the Fidelity Freedom Funds and the Invesco Global Real Estate Fund despite their alleged underperformance. They claimed the actively managed Freedom Funds performed worse than comparable passive funds, exposed investors to greater risk, and were imprudently designated as the Plan's default investment, while the Invesco Fund also lagged comparable investments. The Plaintiffs further asserted that Quest's Investment Policy Statements required removal of both funds from the Plan's investment menu. he complaint asserted three claims. Count One alleged that Quest breached its fiduciary duty under ERISA by continuing to offer the Fidelity Freedom Funds and the Invesco Fund. Count Two alleged that Quest breached its duty to monitor the Plan's fiduciaries, and Count Three alternatively alleged that, even if Quest and its committees were not fiduciaries, they were liable for knowingly participating in a breach of trust. After denying Quest's motion to dismiss, the district court granted summary judgment in Quest's favor following discovery. It held that Quest did not breach its fiduciary duties because the Investment Committee retained investment advisors, regularly monitored the Plan's investment options, received fiduciary training, and took follow-up action concerning the challenged funds. The court also rejected the related failure-to-monitor and knowing-breach-of-trust claims. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision de novo. It opined that sometimes, even a good process produces disappointing results. The Plaintiffs claimed that two of the Plan's investment options were so bad that offering them violated Quest's fiduciary duty under the ERISA. But at summary judgment, their theory falters. The Plaintiffs argued that when the Funds failed to meet performance benchmarks, the Plan's managers should have removed those Funds from the available investment options. But the Court of Appeals held that ERISA is mostly concerned with process, not outcomes. And the Quest fiduciaries followed a sound process, collaborating with an outside investment advisor and meeting with the managers of the challenged Funds. Nor do fiduciaries need crystal balls. A fund's poor performance alone does not mandate drastic or sudden action. The Court of Appeals concluded that ERISA, like trust law, does not hold trustees liable for poor performance alone. Courts review process first. A fiduciary is prudent if it hires an advisor, critically examines its recommendations and data, and follows up when needed. Quest did just that. Even if the Funds kept on its menu were not the best, they were not the worst either, and the Committee's process was sensible. Because ERISA mandates prudence, not perfection, the Court of Appeals affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/5AW0NNpy9. Alec Berin -- ajberin@millershah.com -- [Argued] James E. Miller -- jemiller@millershah.com -- James C. Shah -- jcshah@millershah.com -- MILLER SHAH, Counsel for Appellants. James D. Nelson -- james.nelson@morganlewis.com -- Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Melissa D. Hill -- melissa.hill@morganlewis.com -- [Argued] Gina F. McGuire -- gina.mcguire@morganlewis.com -- Tyler J. Hill -- tyler.j.hill@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, Counsel for Appellees. RALPH LAUREN: Merrell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD PAUL MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Jan. 15, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., will move for an order granting class certification, on the grounds that all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, including both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied. The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes: Nationwide Class "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." California Subclass "All legally blind individuals in the State of California who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software during January 2022 to July 31, 2023." Centralizing these uniform code‑level issues in one proceeding is not only appropriate but also the practical path to comprehensive relief and to ensuring equal access for blind consumers. The case is tailor‑made for class treatment. The Court should grant the Motion in its entirety The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's website denies blind consumers using screen‑reader technology full and equal access to the same store‑linked goods and services available to sighted customers, in violation of Title III of the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff Richard Paul Merrell is legally blind and navigates websites with screen-reading technology. Ralph Lauren is a designer, marketer, and distributer of luxury lifestyle products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EQzKyv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Class Bid Filing in Barrales Due June 25, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINAMARIE BARRALES, et al., v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-10643-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline Last Day to Request Leave to Amend 60 Days from Date the Pleadings per Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 of this Order Last Day to File Motion for Class June 25, 2027 Certification: Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: June 1, 2028, at 9:00 a.m. Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 14, 2028, at 1:30 pm Trial: Oct. 16, 2028, at 9:00 am The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure deadlines, is July 10, 2026, after entry of this order unless stated otherwise by the Court on the record at the Case Management Conference. Reckitt manufactures cleaning products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eYhHNr at no extra charge.[CC] REGULATORY DATACORP: Hughes Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WAYNE HUGHES and APRIL NICHOLE GRIZZARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY DATACORP, INC. and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04991-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify a class action. Regulatory provides risk and financial regulatory compliance data and software solutions for technology companies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JKvnT4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. James M. Feagle, Esq. SKAAR &FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com REGULATORY DATACORP: Hughes Suit Seeks to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WAYNE HUGHES, and APRIL NICHOLE GRIZZARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY DATACORP, INC., and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04991-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal Exhibits 1-12, 14-15, and 18-20 to their contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law in support of their motion for class certification. Exhibits 1-11 were marked as confidential by the Defendants. Exhibits 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 were marked confidential by non-party Capital One. Pending the Court's ruling on this motion, Plaintiffs will file redacted version of the Exhibits, and submit unredacted versions to the Court with the portions proposed to be sealed identified with yellow highlighting. Should the Court find that any of the material referenced herein be publicly filed, Plaintiff will promptly refile unredacted versions of same. Regulatory provides risk and financial regulatory compliance data and software solutions for technology companies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k09Spc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Carmack Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resort Condominiums Services LLC. The case is styled as James Carmack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resort Condominiums Services LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-01397 (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Resort Condominiums Services LLC -- https://resortcms.com/ -- is a timeshare marketing platform based in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com RICHMOND, IN: Remand of Craig Fire Suit to State Court Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TUSHAWN CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 26-1864 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In April 2023, a fire broke out at an industrial facility in Richmond, Indiana, prompting local officials to order nearby residents to evacuate for several days. The fire burned for more than a week and allegedly released hazardous gases and particulates that spread across hundreds of surrounding properties. The facility occupied three parcels of land, two owned by the City of Richmond and one jointly owned by My-Way Trading, Inc., Cornerstone Trading Group, LLC, and Cornerstone's president, Seth Smith. In April 2025, 150 plaintiffs filed suit in Wayne County Circuit Court against the property owners, alleging that the private defendants' failure to maintain the facility and the City's failure to remediate hazardous conditions after acquiring two of the properties in 2021 caused the fire. The Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, and negligence per se, seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries, property damage, economic losses, and lost profits. They also sought punitive damages and asserted claims for nuisance, trespass, battery, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and diminution in property value. The Defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting that it qualified as a removable "mass action." They alleged that the case satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, including minimal diversity, an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, and claims by more than 100 plaintiffs proposing joint trial based on common questions of law and fact. The Defendants also asserted that none of CAFA's statutory exceptions to mass action jurisdiction applied. Two months after removal, the magistrate judge sua sponte directed the parties to address whether the case fell within CAFA's local event or occurrence exception, which excludes from the definition of a mass action cases arising from a single event or occurrence in the state where the action was filed that caused injuries in that state or a contiguous state. After considering the parties' arguments, the magistrate judge concluded that the exception applied because all claims arose from the Richmond fire and recommended remanding the case. The district court agreed, holding that the exception is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time, and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c) and reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. The Seventh Circuit first considered whether CAFA's local event or occurrence exception is jurisdictional. Rejecting the Defendants' argument that the exception had to be raised by the Plaintiffs in a timely motion to remand, it held that the exception is jurisdictional because it defines what qualifies as a removable "mass action." Accordingly, the magistrate judge properly raised the issue sua sponte. The Seventh Circuit next addressed, as a matter of first impression, whether CAFA's local event or occurrence exception applied. It held that the week-long Richmond fire constituted an "event or occurrence" within the meaning of the statute and that all of the Plaintiffs' claims arose from that event because every alleged injury and damage resulted from the fire. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the exception applied, leaving the case outside CAFA's mass action jurisdiction. he Seventh Circuit held that CAFA's local event or occurrence exception is jurisdictional and therefore could be raised sua sponte by the district court. It further concluded that the Richmond fire was an "event or occurrence" from which all of the Plaintiffs' claims arose, making the exception applicable. Because removal under CAFA was improper, the Court affirmed the order remanding the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/tnBd2GaUo RICOH USA: Ballungay Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARANAY "SONNY" BALLUNGAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10785-JLS-CTS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his application for leave to file under seal the entirety of six (6) of the exhibits to the supplemental declaration of Robin G. Workman in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed June 25, 2026. These exhibits were produced during the course and scope of discovery in this matter and designated as "CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" by the Defendant. The Plaintiff applies for an Order permanently sealing the following Exhibits to the Workman Declaration which the Defendant designated as confidential in their entirety: Exhibit D: Corporate Safety Manual, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001206-1213 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit E: FS-Storage Unit Setup Checklist, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001214-1215 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit F: FS-Storage Unit Setup Process, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001216-1220 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit G: Excerpts from OFS Mobility New Hire Technicians MOD 1.0-MOD 11, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001221-1534 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit H: OFS Mobility New Hire Technicians Exam Questions & Answers, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001535-1538 CONFIDENTIAL Exhibit I: OFS Technician Comment Fields 1.0, Bates Nos. RICOH_BALL(CLASS) 001539-1593 CONFIDENTIAL Ricoh provides information management and digital services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WYAYJY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Workman, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 2325 3rd Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028 E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com RIVER HEIGHTS: Court Stays Class Cert. Deadlines ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KIDD, DONNA McKNIGHT, And BARBARA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. RIVER HEIGHTS CAPITAL LLC, DAVID KENNEDY BIFULCO, and POLLACK & ROSEN, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-05112-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay discovery and class certification deadlines pending resolution of discovery motions as follows: 1. The discovery and class certification deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order are stayed pending further Order of the Court. 2. The Court reserves ruling on any further relief requested in ECF No. 38, including the duration of any stay and the setting of revised case-management deadlines, until after the scheduled hearing. 3. The Defendants shall appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned or otherwise ordered to provide relief for their alleged failure to comply with their discovery obligations and the Court's ESI Order. 4. A show cause hearing is scheduled for July 7, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 10-B, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. River Heights is a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsHd8F at no extra charge.[CC] ROADSAFE TRAFFIC: Aitken Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Casondra Rebecca Aitken, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV007677 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01101. The Plaintiff alleges 13 causes of action against Defendant, styled as: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay; Meal Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest Break Liability Under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages Under Labor Code; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements Under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Timely Wages Upon Termination Under Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay Wages When Due Under Labor Code; Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records under Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Violation of Business & Professions Code; and Penalties under the Private Attorney's General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul M. Smith, Esq. Kyle A. Wende, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: paul.smith@ogletree.com kyle.wende@ogletree.com SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Johnson Securities Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Sable Offshore Corp. disclosed in its current report on Form 8-K, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2026, that it is facing a putative securities class action filed on July 28, 2025, by shareholder Tracy Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp., et al.," Case No. 2 25-cv-06869. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired the company's publicly traded securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025, when the company engaged in a public offering, and or pursuant and or traceable to the offering. The complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its officers, and the underwriters in the offering. Sable Offshore Corp. is an energy company focused on the development and operation of offshore oil and gas assets. The company explores for and produces hydrocarbons from offshore fields, supporting energy supply and related infrastructure. SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Court Narrows Claims in Mosaic Health Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOSAIC HEALTH, INC. and CENTRAL VIRGINIA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, LILLY USA, LLC, NOVO NORDISK INC., and ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Case No. 6:21-cv-06507-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen D. Holland entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' state-law claims. Specifically, the Defendants' motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' third claim in its entirety and with respect to the Plaintiffs' second claim to the extent it alleges a violation of the Mississippi Antitrust Act and the Utah Antitrust Act. The Defendants' motion is otherwise denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' Second Claim. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state antitrust claims under the laws of Mississippi and Utah, but that their state law antitrust claims are otherwise adequately pleaded. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint does not specifically allege any wholly intrastate transactions within Mississippi. The Plaintiffs have also failed to address this requirement of Mississippi law or explain how it is satisfied here. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' second claim must be dismissed to the extent it alleges a violation of the Mississippi Antitrust Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendant pharmaceutical companies have violated state and federal antitrust laws by "coordinating to retract a long-standing discount for safety-net hospitals and clinics." Sanofi-Aventis is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ta6YXq at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid to Stay Ulloa Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01752 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ajay S. Krishnan entered an order denying without prejudice the motion to stay at this time, and no opposition or reply brief need be filed. Additionally, the Court would like to have the Motion for Summary Judgment heard on August 19, 2026. The parties shall meet and confer and stipulate to a briefing schedule that permits such hearing and that accounts for Plaintiffs' counsel's trial obligations in another matter. The Court intends to and proposes the following with respect to the scheduling and sequencing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Securitas's Motions for Summary Judgment and to Stay. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions.[CC] SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Seeks to File Unredacted Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeSimone et al., v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03837-PKC-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them permission to file unredacted versions of the following redacted documents under seal: -- The Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification, -- Joint Decl., Ex. F (Excerpted deposition transcript of Timothy O'Shea, -- Joint Decl., Ex. G (Excerpted Rule 30(b)(1) deposition transcript of Curtis Pulsipher, -- Joint Decl., Ex. H (Excerpted Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript of Curtis Pulsipher, -- Joint Decl., Ex. I (SPS Call Handling Policy• Joint Decl., Ex. J (SPS Fee Matrix (Dkt. 168-11)), -- Joint Decl., Ex. L (SPS Call Handling Policy (2024), and -- Joint Decl., Ex. Q (Expert Report of Arthur Olsen. All the redacted documents and testimony were designated "confidential" by SPS, in whole or the portion redacted. Sections (d) and (i) of the Protective Order entered in this action do not permit the Plaintiffs to file documents (or the portions of documents) designated as "confidential" by SPS in the public record. Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rules 1.B and 1.D, the Plaintiffs' counsel will be delivering to chambers paper courtesy copies of: 1) the Plaintiffs filed motion for class certification submissions; and 2) unredacted versions of all redacted documents highlighting the portions of the documents that were redacted. All unredacted documents have also been provided to SPS's counsel. Select Portfolio is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w2oGTw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: DeSimone Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeSimone, et al., v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03837-PKC-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Classes under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), and appointing the below-listed named plaintiffs as Class Representatives: Nationwide FDCPA Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the United States (except those in the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Oregon, and West Virginia) serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust agreements incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"); (3) whose loans were in default when SPS began servicing or subservicing the loan, and (4) who paid an "EZ Pay Fee" or any other fee to SPS for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") systems during the Nationwide FDCPA Class statute of limitations (i.e., Aug. 20, 2019 through a date to be determined before trial). The Plaintiffs Kim and Asvitt-Osman are the proposed representatives for the Nationwide FDCPA Class. Nationwide Breach of Contract Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the United States (except those in the District of Columbia, North Carolina, Oregon, and West Virginia) serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust instruments incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"); (3) who paid an "EZ Pay Fee" or any other fee to SPS for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") systems during the applicable statutes of limitations (set out in Appendix A) through a date to be determined before trial; and (4) who did not have a SPS loan status code of "DELQ" or "FC" at the time of any such payment." The Plaintiffs Snowden, Meisenbach, and Asvitt-Osman are proposed representatives for the Nationwide Breach of Contract Class. New York Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the State of New York serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust agreements incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”); and (3) who paid an "EZ Pay Fee" or any other fee to SPS for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") systems during the New York Class statute of limitations (i.e., Aug. 20, 2017 through a date to be determined before trial). The Plaintiff Kim is the proposed representative for the New York Class. California Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the State of California serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust agreements incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"); and (3) who paid an "EZ Pay Fee" or any other fee to SPS for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") systems one or more days after the first of the month during the California Class statute of limitations (i.e., for the Rosenthal Act claim, from Aug. 24, 2019 through a date to be determined before trial; and for the UCL claim, from Aug. 24, 2016 through a date to be determined before trial)." The Plaintiffs Meisenbach and AsvittOsman are the proposed representatives for the California Class. Maryland Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a property in the State of Maryland serviced or subserviced by SPS; (2) with mortgage or deed of trust agreements incorporating standard uniform covenants from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"); and (3) who paid an "EZ Pay Fee" or any other fee to SPS for making a loan payment by telephone, internet, or Interactive Voice Response ("IVR") systems during the Maryland Class statute of limitations (i.e., Feb. 5, 2018 through a date to be determined before trial)." Plaintiff Snowden is the proposed representative for the Maryland Class. The Plaintiffs also seek to appoint Rachel Geman, Katherine Aizpuru, Catherine Anderson, Joseph Tusa, and James Kauffman as Class Counsel. All of the proposed Classes exclude: (i) SPS's officers, directors, employees, and agents as well as any outside counsel in this litigation; (ii) any judge to whom this case is assigned, along with his or her staff; and (iii) immediate family of any individual excluded by (i) or (ii). Select Portfolio is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ntj29N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Robin Bleiweis, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVEREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com rbleiweis@tzlegal.com - and - Rachel Geman, Esq. Ellie E. Olson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com eolson@lchb.com - and - Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. Raymond Audain, Esq. Symone Yancey, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com raudain@gslawny.com syancey@gslawny.com - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. 55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tuspc@gmail.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. Allison Bruff, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com abruff@baileyglasser.com - and - Ross E. Shanberg, Esq. SHANBERG STAFFORD LLP 4100 Newport Place, Suite 820 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 205-7515 E-mail: rshanberg@ssbfirm.com SHAHRAM SHAHBAZIAN: Standing Order Entered in Myers Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMAR MYERS, v. SHAHRAM SHAHBAZIAN, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-06838-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered a standing order: The action has been assigned to the calendar of United States District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Both the court and counsel bear responsibility for the progress of this action. The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), including “Doe” or fictitiously named defendants, shall be dismissed from the action. All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this court as a supplement to the notice of removal. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the district judge’s initials next to the action number. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. The court hears motions in civil actions on Fridays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Notwithstanding Local Rule 23-3, the deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification will be set pursuant to the parties’ stipulation during the Scheduling Conference or in a Scheduling Order. No request for relief from Local Rule 23-3 is necessary. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JI08bv at no extra charge.[CC] SHAKALAKA BAKERY: Opposition to Conditional Cert Bid Due August 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Qi Ren v. Shakalaka Bakery Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01694-GHW-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order adopting the proposed briefing schedule concerning the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Collective as follows: The Plaintiff's motion: June 12, 2026 The Defendant's opposition: Aug. 13, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply: Sept. 4, 2026. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 23. The Defendant serves a variety of pastries and cakes. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NtmnhZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Shengyuan Zhu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: syzhu@hanglaw.com SLJ BAR LLC: LaPera sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Caitlin LaPera, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members v. SLJ BAR LLC DB/A COMMON GROUND, DAECREW 63 LLC, JESSE BAER, NICOLE PASSARO, MICHAEL ROMER AND CHRISTOPHER REDA, Case No. 1:26-cv-05335 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of a collective, and under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") from Defendants for: unpaid minimum wages; unlawfully retained and misappropriated tips; unlawful credit-card fee deductions from gratuities; liquidated damages for the late payment of wages; statutory penalties for Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices under NYLL and wage statements under NYLL liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants engaged in a systemic tip misappropriation scheme. Plaintiff and other bartenders initially agreed to a tip sheet and tip-pool arrangement that they understood to be fair. Defendants thereafter changed the arrangement without notice, including by taking money from the tip pool and diverting gratuities away from bartenders and other tipped workers. The Defendant's unlawful practices remain in place notwithstanding that the New York State Department of Labor determined last year that Common Ground violated the wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay employees on time and assessed penalties. Common Ground's continued failure to pay employees on time warrants 100% liquidated damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a bartender for Common Ground from 2023 to present. SLJ Bar LLC operates Common Ground at 63 Gansevoort Street.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, Ste. 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: (914) 552-2669 Email: tim@talegalgroup.com SOLVENTUM CORPORATION: Smith Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solventum Corporation. The case is styled as Joshua Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solventum Corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-03090-KMM-ECW (D. Minn., June 25, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Solventum -- https://www.solventum.com/en-us/home/ -- is a healthcare company built from a legacy of innovation and dedicated to enabling better, smarter, safer healthcare to improve lives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan Thomas Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Fax: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Certification Phase Discovery Requests OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FLORES JR ET AL, V. SOUTHERN RESPONSE SERVICES INC ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-04021-JDC-TPL (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Leblanc entered an order that all parties' Certification Phase Discovery requests are approved except as stated. Consistent with the Scheduling Order, each party continues to retain the right to object to any request for any reason other than its relevance to Certification Phase Discovery. The court further orders that all discovery requests approved by this Memorandum Order, subject to any limitations or qualifications set forth in this Memorandum Order, are deemed to have been served by the requesting party upon the responding party as of the date of this Memorandum Order, and responses are due within 30days after such service and otherwise in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs' objections to Defendant SRS's discovery requests are overruled. These discovery requests have potential relevance to the question before the Court during the certification phase. Accordingly, Southern Response Services, Inc.'s first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to thePlaintiff David Flores, Jr. and Southern Response Services, Inc.'s first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the Plaintiff Matthew Sirmon are approved as consistent with the scope of Certification Phase Discovery. Southern specializes in providing staffing solutions for industries such as construction, manufacturing, warehousing, oil and gas, agriculture, and transportation. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HNaHRn at no extra charge.[CC] SPARC GROUP: Peppars Seeks Dismissal of Claims w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their Stipulation: (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn, and the Sept. 3, 2026, hearing is taken off calendar; and (2) The class claims are dismissed without prejudice. On April 6, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which is currently set for hearing on Sept. 3, 2026. The Plaintiff agrees to voluntarily withdraw the Motion and seeks to dismiss her class claims without prejudice. The Court need not order the parties to disseminate notice of dismissal because the typical reasons for notifying absent class members are not present here. The Plaintiff's motion has been withdrawn, no class has been certified, and counsel is unaware of any putative class members who have refrained from bringing a similar claim in reliance of the existence of this action. SPARC is a major retail operating company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BeRmYw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Pike, Esq. Trisha Monesi, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555; Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: bpike@tomorrowlaw.com tmonesi@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. Mackenzie Mullin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, Ca 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com mmullin@seyfarth.com SPORTSEDTV INC: Balestrieri Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK BALESTRIERI, v. SPORTSEDTV, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04046-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kim entered an order: -- granting the motion for class certification for the following class: "Defendant's 1,264 subscribers who reside in the United States whom the Defendant has identified through its records as having watched videos on the Defendant's Website during the period of May 9, 2023 to May 16, 2025"; -- appointing the Plaintiff Nick Balestrieri as Settlement Class Representative; -- appointing Edward J. Wynne of the Wynne Law Firm and James F. Clapp of Clapp Legal APC as Class Counsel; -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; and -- appointing Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator. The parties' Settlement Agreement satisfies the higher level of scrutiny applied to negotiated settlements before formal class certification. The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan and procedure. The parties are ordered to file either (1) a joint status report notifying the Court of its progress in selecting a cy pres beneficiary, or (2) a Notice of Proposed Cy Pres Recipient within 60 days of the entry of this Order. The parties are also directed to submit a stipulation and proposed order tracking the schedule above, filled in with actual dates, within two weeks of the entry of this Order. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiff, a California resident, commenced this putative class action, alleging that Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). SportsEdTV is an online sports education media company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4jQXj at no extra charge.[CC] STOP & SHOP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Suit Due Sept. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-12055 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered a partial amended scheduling order as follows: -- Fact Discovery to be completed by Aug. 21, 2026 -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts and Filing of Class Certification Expert Reports shall be done by Sept. 18, 2026 -- Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion to be filed by Sept. 18, 2026 -- Deadline for Depositions of Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts shall be done by Oct. 23, 2026 -- Defendants Class Certification Opposition to be filed by Nov. 20, 2026 -- Disclosure of Defendants' Class Certification Experts and Filing of Defendants' Class Certification Expert Report(s) shall be done by Nov. 20, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Class Certification Reply to be filed by Dec. 22, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Class Certification Expert Rebuttal Report(s) to be filed by Dec. 22, 2026 -- Parties to submit proposed schedule for briefing of Daubert motions pertaining to class certification, if any, by Dec. 29, 2026 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Stop & Shop is a major American regional supermarket chain.[CC] STOUT NYC HOSPITALITY: Molina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Molina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. STOUT NYC HOSPITALITY GROUP INC. f/k/a WHELAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AMITY STREET, INC. d/b/a AMITY HALL DOWNTOWN, AMITY HALL UPTOWN INC. d/b/a AMITY HALL UPTOWN, STOUT INC. d/b/a FEILE d/b/a STOUT NYC PENN STATION, MAGGIE'S PLACE, INC. d/b/a MAGGIE'S PLACE, RIVERCREST INC. d/b/a RIVERCREST, STOUT II, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC FINANCIAL DISTRICT, STOUT III INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC GRAND CENTRAL, STOUT BRYANT PARK, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC BRYANT PARK, STOUT MARKETS, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC LODGE BAR, HALF PINT ON THOMPSON, LLC d/b/a ERNIE'S BAR d/b/a THE HALF PINT, THE INDEPENDENT NYC, INC. d/b/a THE INDEPENDENT, THE LONG ROOM INC. d/b/a THE LONG ROOM, THE WOLFE ON AMSTERDAM INC. d/b/a THE WOLFE, and MARTIN P. WHELAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-05433 (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 overtime wages, due to improper overtime calculations; unpaid overtime wages, due to failure to aggregate all hours worked at multiple locations; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages, due to time shaving; illegally retained gratuities; unpaid spread of hours premiums; costs incurred in purchasing and maintaining uniforms; 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 SYNGENTA CROP: Watkins Sues Over Illness Tied to Paraquat Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------ TODD WATKINS, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendants, Case No. N26C-06-265 PQT (Super. Ct., Del., June 23, 2026) is a class action alleging that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with their use. The complaint relates that the Defendants, and those with whom they were acting in concert, manufactured and distributed the Paraquat to which Plaintiff was exposed. The Defendants acted together to design, sell, advertise, manufacture and/or distribute Paraquat, with full knowledge of its dangerous and defective nature, it adds. As a result of Plaintiff's years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendants' Paraquat products, Plaintiff contracted Parkinson's disease, says the suit. When Plaintiff was exposed to Paraquat, he neither knew nor could have expected that Paraquat was neurotoxic or that exposure to it could cause any neurological injury or neurodegenerative disease. He also neither knew nor could have expected that wearing gloves, a mask, or other personal protective equipment or taking any other precautions might have prevented or reduced the risk of a neurological injury or neurodegenerative disease caused by exposure to Paraquat. Plaintiff only recently learned that Paraquat caused his injuries. Prior to this, he did not have knowledge of any facts that would have put him on notice that his Parkinson's disease was due to Defendants' products, nor has there been widespread media coverage that put him on notice. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff did not know and was unable to learn of the connection between Defendants' products and his injuries due to the concealment of the information by Defendants and their ongoing public campaign stating there is no connection between Paraquat and Parkinson's disease. Defendants intended that Plaintiff and other members of the public rely upon their statements when they knew or should have known that their statements were either not true, or were misleading. The Plaintiff brings this case to recover from Defendants, under the following theories of liability: compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Plaintiff to Paraquat from Defendants' Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability--design defect; strict product liability--failure to warn; breach of express warranties; and fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff Todd Watkins is a resident of Alabama who used Defendants' Paraquat products. Defendants Syngenta Crop Protection LLC and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. are engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling Paraquat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 E-mail: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com TARGET CORPORATION: Buckmaster Seeks Final OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE BUCKMASTER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-05375-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the class action settlement preliminarily approved by the Court on March 13, 2026 ("Preliminary Approval Order"). As discussed in the Preliminary Approval Motion, Class Counsel seeks an attorney's fees award of 33% of the Common Fund, or $412,500, plus actual and projected litigation costs of approximately $10,000, to be paid out of the common fund. The court preliminarily approved payment of fees and costs incurred by Simpluris in an amount not to exceed $120,000 from Common Settlement in the Preliminary Approval Order. The total costs for services in connection with the administration, including fees for issuance and mailing of settlement checks, tax reporting on such payments, etc., are $90,916. The $120,000 amount was included in the notice and no individual objected to it. Indeed, the class fund will be over $29,000 more than the estimated class fund included in the notice. As such, the settlement award should be granted final approval. Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OjePqZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bailey C. Wilson, Esq. ENTENTE LAW PLLC 315 Thirty-Ninth Ave SW Ste. 13 Puyallup, WA 98373-3690 Telephone: (253) 446-7668 E-mail: bailey@ententelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily A. Bushaw, Esq. Heather Shook, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 3rd Ave, STE 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: ebushaw@perkinscoie.com hshook@perkinscoie.com TEAM INDUSTRIAL: Fact Discovery Due July 14 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK PENN, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, v. TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07652-SPG-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order granting in part and denying in part the stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification, class certification hearing date, final pretrial conference, trial date, and all related pretrial deadlines. The Court orders that the Case Schedule is amended as follows: Last date to hear motion for class May 5, 2027 certification: Fact discovery Cut-Off: July 14, 2027 Last date to hear Daubert motions: Sept. 22, 2027 Deadline to complete settlement conference: Oct. 13, 2027 Trial: Nov. 30, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. Team provides services related to maintenance, inspection, and construction. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=do7Rt0 at no extra charge.[CC] TRUE BLUE: Figueroa Class Action Transferred to E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THEA JESUS FIGUEROA, v. TRUE BLUE, INC., and PEOPLESCOUT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05329-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas. The clerk shall transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and close this case. Figueroa's motion to certify is denied without prejudice to re-file in that Court. Figueroa's unsupported claim that she was employed by TrueBlue is the only connection this jurisdiction has to the case. None of the remaining section 1404 factors point to this jurisdiction; they instead strongly suggest this is not an appropriate forum. Figueroa seeks to represent a class she defines as: "All hourly-paid recruiters who worked at TrueBlue and/or PeopleScout in the State of Texas at any time during the four years preceding the filing of this action through class certification whose pay was docked by application of a meal break deduction to their shifts worked in weeks in which they worked 40 or fewer hours (the "Texas Class")." TrueBlue provides temporary manual labor to the light industrial and small business markets. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HY1BII at no extra charge.[CC] UNION CARBIDE: Court Orders Reopening of Sommerville Case --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00878 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Goodwin entered an eighth amended scheduling order: Seeing that all possible appellate review has been exhausted, the court orders the action be reopened. Given the intervening appellate proceedings and the reopening of this matter on remand, the court concludes that the interests of judicial economy are best served by denying the pending motions without prejudice, subject to refiling, as appropriate, under this Eighth Amended Scheduling Order. Accordingly, all pending motions, except Plaintiff's motion are denied without prejudice. Any party wishing to pursue a motion denied without prejudice by this Order may refile that motion in accordance with Eighth Amended Scheduling Order. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class shall remain pending. The parties Sommerville and any developments occurring during the pendency of the appeal. To facilitate such, the court resets the schedule. The court orders that the case proceed as follows: Refiling of motions denied without July 20, 2026 prejudice by this Order: Supplemental briefing on the Plaintiff's July 17, 2026 motion to certify class: Responses to refiled motions and July 24, 2026 supplemental class-certification briefing: Replies in support of refiled motions and July 29, 2026 class-certification briefing: Filing of dispositive motions: July 24, 2026 Pretrial conference: Dec. 3, 2026 10:00 AM On May 13, 2024, the court dismissed this action, concluding that the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing because her claims were not ripe and she failed to establish an injury in fact. The Plaintiff appealed, and on Aug. 18, 2025, the Fourth Circuit reversed both rulings and remanded the case to this court. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Fourth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, and on May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Union is a manufacturer of chemicals, petrochemicals, and related products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZhvDo4 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Brown Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY BROWN, ET AL., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00902-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Pittman entered an order granting the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court recognizes the gravity of this case and does not take this decision lightly. However, after serving over a decade on three different benches, experience has taught this Court to believe that "[v]enue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a Plaintiffs' whim where and how a lawsuit is filed." After careful consideration, the Court concludes the most convenient venue for this case is the Northern District of Illinois. Among other factors, proximity to Defendant's Illinois headquarters makes the Northern District of Illinois the more convenient venue for witnesses and evidence, and Illinois has a much stronger local interest in this case than the Northern District of Texas. Thus, having considered the relevant private- and public-interest factors, the Court concludes that this case should be and is Transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.5 On September 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this mass action in response to their exclusion from the class this Court certified in Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., another Title VII COVID-19 case against the same Defendant. 347 F.R.D. 155 (N.D. Tex. 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24- 10656, 2024 WL 6083707 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2024), aff’d sub nom., Kincannon v. United Airlines, Inc., 168 F.4th 713 (5th Cir. 2026) United Airlines provides domestic and international airline services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9byoQ4 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AMERICAN: Parties Must File Amend Pleadings by Sept. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANG, et al., v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02377 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order that the following schedule governs discovery: (1) By July 14, 2026, the parties shall make initial disclosures for class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); (2) By September 29, 2026, the parties shall file any motion to join parties or amend the pleadings; (3) By October 9, 2026, class certification fact discovery shall close; and (4) By November 9, 2026, expert discovery shall close, unless the parties file a joint status report proposing an agreed-upon extension of time to complete expert discovery, which time period is currently disputed; and parties shall file a joint status report proposing a schedule for class certification briefing; The Court further entered an order that the number of interrogatories and depositions shall be limited pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. United American is a regional physical security and investigations firm.[CC] UNITED HOMES: DiMare Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Kadiyam Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMESH KADIYAM, et al., v. UNITED HOMES GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02989-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered an order granting DiMare's motion to be appointed a lead plaintiff and for Glancy Prongay to be appointed as class counsel. DiMare has sufficient financial losses to ensure that she has an incentive to provide vigorous advocacy. There is no indication that DiMare has interests that are antagonistic to other class members. The Court appoints DiMare as the lead plaintiff. DiMare has selected Glancy Prongay, a firm experienced in securities class actions, to serve as class counsel. The firm has represented investors, consumers and employees for over 35 years; has offices in New York City, as well as in California; and has been appointed as lead or co-lead counsel in many securities class action lawsuits. The record provides a basis to believe the firm will adequately represent the class. The Court appoints Glancy Prongay as class counsel. This case arises from allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendant United Homes between May 19, 2025 and Feb. 22, 2026. United Homes is a residential home building company founded by Nieri. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FVivTR at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Joint Proposed Class Cert Briefing Schedule OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Geraghty entered an order granting the joint proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court further orders that the briefing deadlines below are adopted as the deadlines of the Court. Deadline Filing July 10, 2026 The 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 for leave to file a sur-reply Aug. 14, 2026 The Defendants' reply in support of motion to disregard and leave to file a sur-reply United Parcel is an American multinational shipping-and-receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uSMhCE at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE: Fox Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02870 (D. Colo., June 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC -- https://www.uwm.com/ -- provides mortgage lending services. The Company offers mortgage loans and online financing services to home purchases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UNO CAFE & BILLARDS: Donoso Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uno Cafe & Billards Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cielo Donoso a/k/a Luisa Alipio, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Uno Cafe & Billards Inc. d/b/a Uno Cafe & Billiards and d/b/a Amor Karaoke & Bar; Rosalia K. Lee; Ken Lee; John Park; Yangkey Kim; Case No. 716360/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (FLSA and NYLL Class)." Uno Cafe & Billiard Inc. is a long-standing, popular billiards cafe and pool hall located at 78-01 Roosevelt Ave, Jackson Heights, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: johntroy@troypllc.com VGW HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Cox Action ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE COX, v. VGW HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED, VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW LUCKYLAND, INC., VGW GP LIMITED, VGW HOLDINGS, US, INC., and VGW US, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00363-SFR (D. Conn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) dismissing this action for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), or, alternatively, (2) denying class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. VGW Group submits that this motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in its accompanying memorandum of law and the declaration of Caterina Cavallaro. VGW operates an online gaming portal. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YoTCdG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Behnam Dayanim, Esq. Gregory D. Beaman, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 339-8400 E-mail: bdayanim@orrick.com gbeaman@orrick.com - and - John M. Doroghazi, Esq. Benjamin H. Diessel, Esq. WIGGIN AND DANA LLP 265 Church Street New Haven, CT 06508 Telephone: (203) 498-4400 E-mail: jdoroghazi@wiggin.com bdiessel@wiggin.com WASHINGTON COUNTY SERVICE: Sued Over Unpaid OT Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Deskins McDaniel, on behalf of herself as well as all those similarly situated v. WASHINGTON COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY, Case 1:26-cv-00061-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., June 26, 2026), is brought the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as a direct result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered unpaid wages and overtime compensation. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Defendant maintained an on-call system requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to remain available for work-related duties and monitoring responsibilities outside their regularly scheduled shifts. The Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked under this on call system. On multiple occasions employees complained to management that the on call compensation system violated wage-and-hour laws and failed to compensate employees for all hours worked. Defendant failed to include all compensable hours in calculating overtime compensation for Water Treatment Operators. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and Water Treatment Operators overtime wages at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked as a Water Treatment Operator for WCSA from March 15, 2021 through May 26, 2026. Washington County Service Authority owns and operates a facility in Washington County, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Ave. Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: 540-283-0802 Email: thomas@vaemployment.law WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification Tossed in Cash Sweep Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Denial is with prejudice as to the Advisory Subclass. For the remainder, it is without prejudice. But if the plaintiffs choose to file a renewed motion for class certification, the proposed class must only contain people for whom the plaintiffs can reliably show they would be able to bring claims under the statute of limitations in their state of residence. For example, as to any state for which the plaintiffs cannot reliably show that the state would apply the continuing breach doctrine or some other doctrine treating the breaches here as distinct, the proposed class should only include people who first used the Cash Sweep Program within their state's limitations period. A zoom case management conference is scheduled for Friday, Aug. 7, at 10 a.m. to discuss how to proceed. A joint case management statement, which does not need to follow the format prescribed by the local rules, is due July 31. Accordingly, because individual issues are likely to predominate for each of the three claims brought by the Advisory Subclass, the motion for class certification is denied as to the Advisory Subclass. Because Wells Fargo has identified legitimate problems with the plaintiffs' state law survey as to at least a couple of the states, and because the plaintiffs have not provided an adequate response as to those states, the Court cannot with confidence determine which potential class members in which states can be part of the class. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pNTXEh at no extra charge.[CC] XYZ LIMOUSINE: Partial Reversal of Summary Judgment in Abdelhamed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Mohamed H. Abdelhamed, et al., appellants, v. XYZ Limousine, Inc., etc., et al., respondents, Case No. 2021-07641, Index No. 526546/19 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, reversed in part the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants. The appeal concerns whether an exception to certain Labor Law protections for individuals employed or permitted to work as taxicab drivers under Labor Law Section 651(5)(d) applies, and whether the doctrine of tax estoppel bars the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs allege that XYZ Limousine, Inc. and related entities employed them as black car drivers providing recurring transportation services to businesses under contracts negotiated by XYZ. They claim they had no control over those contracts, were required to work regular shifts of up to 14 hours a day, and could work only for XYZ. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against XYZ and its alleged principal, Mohamed Mowad, seeking damages for alleged violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law. During discovery, they subpoenaed several of XYZ's alleged customers. Two produced documents showing that XYZ had contractual agreements to provide recurring ground transportation services. One customer, a law firm, produced a master services agreement identifying XYZ as its ground transportation vendor for year-round transportation services, while a media company produced a transportation rate book, incorporated into its transportation services agreement with XYZ, setting rates for executive sedan services on routes within and outside New York City. Before discovery concluded, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Labor Law claims, arguing that they were exempt under the taxicab exception in Labor Law Section 651(5)(d) and barred by the doctrine of tax estoppel. They relied on customer contracts, an affidavit from XYZ's controller asserting that XYZ was a cooperative of black car drivers rather than a transportation contractor, and the Plaintiffs' tax returns showing they had reported themselves as self-employed. In opposition, the Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from Mohamed Mowad from a separate case stating that XYZ maintained institutional customers who were billed monthly for transportation services. They also submitted affidavits asserting that most of their work involved transporting repeat customers and that XYZ, not the drivers, decided to classify them as self-employed for tax purposes. The Supreme Court declined to apply the doctrine of tax estoppel but granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Plaintiffs' Labor Law claims. Citing two federal district court decisions, it concluded that the Plaintiffs qualified for the taxicab driver exception under Labor Law Section 651(5)(d), which exempted the Defendants from the Labor Law provisions at issue. The Plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Plaintiffs' Labor Law claims under the taxicab exception in Labor Law Section 651(5)(d) or, alternatively, that the claims were barred by the doctrine of income tax estoppel. The Appellate Division rejected both arguments. First, the Appellate Division held that the Defendants failed to establish that the taxicab exception barred the plaintiffs' Labor Law claims. Viewing the evidence in the Plaintiffs' favor, it found that the agreements and rate documents produced during discovery raised triable issues of fact as to whether XYZ operated under contracts to provide ground transportation services to third parties. Because the Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the Plaintiffs fell within the taxicab exception, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment on that basis. Second, the Appellate Division held that the Defendants failed to establish that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of tax estoppel. It concluded that the Plaintiffs' tax returns identifying themselves as self-employed did not, by themselves, preclude them from claiming they were employees, particularly where they alleged that XYZ controlled their work and unilaterally classified them as independent contractors for tax purposes. Because the tax filings were not dispositive and the Plaintiffs offered a reasonable explanation for them, summary judgment on the basis of tax estoppel was properly denied. Finally, the Appellate Division declined to address the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments because they were either not properly before the Court or were rendered academic by its decision. Accordingly, the appeal from the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Labor Law Section 195(1) claim was dismissed for lack of aggrievement. The order was otherwise reversed insofar as reviewed, and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs' remaining Labor Law claims, including the claim under Labor Law Section 195(3), was denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://lnk.ua/IuthkZHjP. Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP, New York, NY (Lucas C. Buzzard -- lucas@jk-llp.com -- Josef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jk-llp.com -- and D. Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jk-llp.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Arkin Solbakken LLP, New York, NY (Lisa C. Solbakken -- lsolbakken@arkin-law.com -- Robert C. Angelillo -- rangelillo@arkin-law.com -- Deana Davidian -- ddavidian@arkin-law.com -- and Thomas G. O'Brien -- tobrien@arkin-law.com -- of counsel), for respondents. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Seek Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System, v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05739-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23"), a class consisting of: "All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of ZoomInfo during the period from Nov. 10, 2020 through Aug. 5, 2024, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the "Class")"; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Lead Counsel Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. This federal securities class action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, ZoomInfo's misleadingly inflated RPO figures failed to disclose and account for the Company's lack of due diligence into its customers' ability or intent to pay for their contracts, which disregarded their obligations pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). ZoomInfo is a technology company that offers digital sales and marketing tools to businesses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2POeo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley S. Keller, Esq. Joshua B. Selig, Esq. BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP 1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-2000 Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 E-mail: bkeller@byrneskeller.com jselig@byrneskeller.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. Stephen C. Boscolo, Esq. Grace T. Harmon, Esq. Kaicheng Yu, Esq. Tayler K. Eynon, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com sboscolo@labaton.com gharmon@labaton.com nyu@labaton.com teynon@labaton.com - and - Shawn Busken, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 282-0515 E-mail: Shawn.Busken@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov ********* 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 ***