260714.mbx

260714.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 14, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 139 Headlines 1531 METRO DELI: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. A. RUDIN INC: Reveles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ADAPTHEALTH CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ADP INC: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMAZON.COM INC: Merewhuader Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington AMERICAN CONSUMER: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective White Paint AMERICAN INCOME: Faces Congiunti Suit Over Telephone Spam AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $19MM ARCARE AGED: Faces Class Action for Charging Illegal High Fees BANNER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Patient Privacy Class Action Suit BB OPCO LLC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California BIOGEN INC: $18.9MM Class Settlement Claims Deadline Set Sept. 24 BLACK ROCK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 17 BLANK ROME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach BRITANNICA FLOOR: Ordered to Pay $5,000 in "Jackson" Wage Suit BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit C&S WHOLESALE: Flores Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CARDINAL GLASS: Boggs Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CARMAX ENTERPRISE: Pedroso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CDT SERVICE CORPORATION: Afzali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CIMINOCARE: Elias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CITADEL SECURITIES: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 28 CITISTAFF SOLUTION: Alfaro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY CAPITAL BANK: Gholson Files ECOA Suit in N.D. Indiana CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL: Werts Files Suit in S.D. Florida CURRENEX INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Edmar Suit to 2nd Cir. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Hardy Suit Removed to E.D. California DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims DREAM PALACE: Hammergren Seeks Minimum Pay for Dancers Under FLSA EASTERN SMILES: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website EMORY HEALTHCARE: Harris Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation EPIC SECURITY WORKS: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Agrees to Settle FCRA Suit for $2.2-Mil. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stone Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ESR INVESTMENT INC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property FASHION NOVA: Shavies TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. California FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Afrasiabi Files Suit in D. Massachusetts FIRST FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.2MM FIRST GUARDIAN: Investors Sues Over Superannuation Fund Collapses FITON INC: Agrees to $2.5-Mil. VPPA Class Action Settlement FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Overly Files Suit in S.D. Texas FUTU HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 25 GCA EDUCATION SERVICES: Dunn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Dixon Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defects GENERAL MOTORS: Granata Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan GENIUS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Materially False Statements GINZA 2 LLC: Aulen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GKN AEROSPACE INC: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. California GOODRX INC: Intercepts Web Users' Communications, Erakat Says GRAVITY SLEEP LLC: Powell Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. GRAYSON BENTLEY INC: Kramer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. GROCERY OUTLET INC: Banegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Mendez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. HARBOR FREIGHT: Bonetto Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HUB GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bless Alleges INSTRUCTURE INC: Mockert TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Utah INSULET CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 31 INSULET CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Mass. INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Cuervo Suit Alleges INTUIT INC: Falco Sues Over Inadequate Account Security Measures JEFF & TONYS DSD: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JET EXPRESS: Estrada Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA JP IP: Orcel Suit Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website KIDS CO: May Face Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info KING JAMES: Hammond Balks at Unpaid Wages and Retaliation LAKE REGION: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach LANCASTER REGIONAL: Chennault Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nurses LANSING COMMUNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fritsch Says LENDIO INC: Jackson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. LENOVO US: Hunter Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Agrees to $13.4MM 401(k) Plan ERISA Settlement LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Ward Suit to 1st Cir. LINEAGE INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Hearing in Cuevas Continued to Sept. 22 LOOKOUT WAFFLES: Cann Sues to Recover Minimum Wage LOS ANGELES ARBORETUM: Ascencio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LUDI BRUCA INC: Qi Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MAGICAL INVESTMENT: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Says MASTER-CARE INC: Price Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MATCH.COM L.L.C.: Caetano Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practice MAVA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: Black Files Suit in N.D. Texas MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Barcenas Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations MEN'S HEALTH: De Haro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Adams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina MERRICK BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Skyrocketing DRAM Prices MICROSOFT CORP: Espinoza Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. MISSISSIPPI: Violates Civil Rights of Parents & Youth, Suit Says MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Lawsuit Following Flash Floods MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Rojas Suit Moved from State Court to N.D. Ill. MVP VIP HOLDCO: Atchley Files Suit in D. Kansas NABU ENERGY LLC: Tabora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NAVIENT CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach NEILL AIRCRAFT CO: Quintero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Espinoza Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Neuman Suit Removed from State Court to E.D.N.Y. NEXT LEVEL: Franklin Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming NISSAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kerner Suit Alleges NORCO INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Easa Suit to 9th Circuit NOVA DENTAL: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website NUVA SMILE: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website OKLAHOMA: Appeals Amended Final Order in Feltz Civil Rights Suit ORACLE CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beatty Suit Alleges ORACLE CORPORATION: Fosdyck Files Suit in W.D. Texas PACIFIC HEALTH SERVICES: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARKWEST BICYCLE CASINO: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PEARCE SERVICES: Fails to Properly Manage Facility, Doe Suit Claims PENNSYLVANIA: Grohol Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit PHILIP DIGENNARO: Faces Federal Charges Over %1.3MM Fraud Scheme PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Court OKs $162-Mil. Wage-and-Hour Suit Deal PVH CORP: Hashimi Files Suit in S.D. California RAMON HEALTHCARE: Fowler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAMY BROOK LLC: Jenkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. RUSH UNIVERSITY: Bryant Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA SAFE LIFE POLICY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Delaware SEEN FINANCE: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California SEMTECH CORP: Directors Refused to Cure Statutory Violations SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Conley Sues Over Noxious Pollutants SIMMZYS LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SMM FACILITIES INC: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOCAL4 LLC: Bouldin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Sued Over FIFA World Cup Faulty Ticket Transfers SUMMIT CAPITAL: Isle Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces Suit Over SheaMoisture Products' False Ads SYNEAR FOODS USA: Bakirov Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SYNGENTA CROP: Thomas Sues over Unlawful Distribution of Herbicide TBD BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups TERRIO PHYSICAL THERAPY: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THORNTONS LLC: Phillips Suit Removed to N.D. California TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Boyle Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Causion Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII TRIBUTE STORE US: Bukata Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois UNITED WHOLESALE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lafountain Says VAIL RESORTS: Hebert Employment Suit Removed to D. Colo. VALERO ENERGY: Mann Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection VERACITY WELLNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Metabolism Ignite Capsule VERRA MOBILITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 4 VISA INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Suit WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Discrimination WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WALMART INC: Mehrkens Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WASHINGTON POST: Sued Over Subscription's Surveillance Pricing WIESE USA INC: Wilkerson Files Suit in E.D. Missouri YELP INC: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Cuervo Class Suit Alleges ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ********* 1531 METRO DELI: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- JOAQUIN HERNANDEZ PACHECO and JOSE FORTINO CITLAHUA MATLATECATLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1531 METRO DELI INC. (D/B/A METRO GOURMET DELI), JEROME X DELI DELICIAS CORP. (D/B/A JEROME DELI DELICIAS), ASAM MOHAMMED ALMUALIKI, and MANZUR ALMUALIKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05322 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements, unlawful withholding of tips, and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants at Metro Gourmet Deli from approximately October 1, 2025 until on or about May 18, 2026, and at Jerome Deli Delicias on June 5, 2026, while Plaintiff Fortino was employed by the Defendants at Metro Gourmet Deli from approximately October 18, 2024 until on or about June 13, 2026. 1531 Metro Deli Inc., doing business as Metro Gourmet Deli, is a deli owner and operator located in Bronx, New York. Jerome X Deli Delicias Corp., doing business as Jerome Deli Delicias, is a deli owner and operator located in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 A. RUDIN INC: Reveles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Rudin Inc. The case is styled as Joan Reveles, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A. Rudin Inc., Case No. 26STCV20707 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." A. Rudin -- https://www.arudin.com/ -- has been a Los Angeles based family-owned business fabricating custom furniture of exceptional quality and comfort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the AdaptHealth data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the AdaptHealth data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. AdaptHealth Security Incident: What Happened? AdaptHealth Corp., a network of medical equipment companies, has disclosed a data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 2, 2026. According to the SEC filing, AdaptHealth was contacted by a threat actor purporting to have company data in its possession on June 15, 2026. By June 27 of the same year, AdaptHealth confirmed that it was necessary to file a Form 8-K due to the nature and possible volume of the data that may be at risk. AdaptHealth believes a threat actor gained unauthorized access to some of its systems through a social engineering attack on a user account associated with a third-party contractor. Though the investigation into the AdaptHealth data breach is ongoing, the company has so far determined that passwords associated with insurance billing accounts, as well as certain personally identifiable and protected health information, were affected. At the time this post was made, AdaptHealth had not yet announced a plan to notify potentially affected individuals. What You Can Do After the AdaptHealth Data Breach If your information was exposed in the AdaptHealth data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force AdaptHealth to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] ADP INC: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADP, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcus Brooks, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ADP Inc., Automatic Data Processing Inc., Case No. 26STCV20683 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ADP (Automatic Data Processing) -- https://www.adp.com/ -- is a premier provider of Human Capital Management (HCM) and payroll services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Merewhuader Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bill Merewhuader, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-05164 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02248 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Amazon.com, Inc. -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Julie Y. Park, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (SAN DIEGO) 12531 High Bluff Dr, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 720-5100 Email: juliepark@mofo.com - and - Justin Kareem Rezkalla, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 892-5200 Fax: (213) 892-5454 Email: jrezkalla@mofo.com - and - Mallory Anne Gitt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (SEA) 925 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3800 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 327-6500 Fax: (206) 260-8813 Email: mgitt@mofo.com AMERICAN CONSUMER: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice that the American Consumer Credit Counseling data breach discovered in January 2025 impacted their private information may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $8 from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident compromised the data of approximately 11,611 people. American Consumer Credit Counseling Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a cybersecurity incident exposed sensitive personal information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account numbers and/or payment card information. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United states whose personally identifiable information the data breach discovered by American Consumer Credit Counseling in January 2025 potentially compromised, including those who received notice of the incident. How much can class members get? -- Documented out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $3,500 for documented losses related to the data breach. Eligible losses include monetary losses due to identity theft or fraud, credit monitoring fees, costs to replace IDs or postage for contacting financial institutions. -- Compensation for lost time: Class members can claim up to four hours of time spent addressing the data breach at $20 per hour for a maximum or $80. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not claim out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time can submit a claim to receive a one-time cash payment of $45. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can elect to receive three years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete credit monitoring services, which includes $1 million in financial fraud insurance and monitoring for identity theft, unauthorized transactions and high-risk financial activity. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail or email to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: ACCC Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Settlement administrator's email address: info@ACCCSettlement.com The claim deadline is Sept. 16, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. -- Out-of-pocket losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges or other proof of monetary losses related to the data breach. -- Lost time claims require a brief description of how the time was spent dealing with the data breach. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $225,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $4,000 each ($8,000 total) -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Total determined by number of valid claims filed Important dates -- Claim deadline: Sept. 16, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 8, 2026 When is the American Consumer Credit Counseling data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants no later than 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed that during the cybersecurity incident discovered in 2025, a criminal third party accessed employee email accounts at American Consumer Credit Counseling Inc., potentially exposing sensitive personal information. The company denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $3,580 plus credit monitoring Deadline: September 16, 2026 [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective White Paint ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Honda has failed to disclose a defect in the white paint used on certain Honda and Acura vehicle models that can cause the finish to bubble, peel, chip and delaminate under normal conditions. The 126-page complaint contends that Honda has deceptively marketed affected Honda and Acura vehicles as durable, high-quality, and value-retaining despite knowing that several white paint formulations were prone to premature failure. According to the lawsuit, the defect affects certain 2013-present white-painted Honda and Acura vehicles, including Acura MDX, Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Honda Fit, Honda HR-V, Honda Odyssey and Honda Pilot models with the following paint codes: -- White Diamond Pearl (NH-603P); -- Taffeta White (NH-578); -- White Orchid Pearl/Bellanova White (NH-788P); and -- Platinum White Pearl (NH-883P). The lawsuit claims that the paint issues stem from a "systemic defect" in the paint itself, the application process, and/or the manufacturing process. The alleged defect is not caused by any geographical or environmental factors and instead manifests during ordinary vehicle use, the suit says. Although other cars have only two coats, the vast majority of the Honda and Acura vehicles at issue are painted with a three-stage or tri-coat technique consisting of a base coat, a pearl or metallic mid-point, and a clear coat, the suit relays. The filing states that this process requires "meticulous precision" and that even minor inconsistencies in materials or manufacturing can result in long-term issues. Should the defect occur, the complaint alleges, the paint of an affected vehicle may experience bubbling, chipping, peeling or delamination, diminishing the car’s appearance and resale value. The suit further claims that because automotive paint is not just cosmetic and serves as a protective barrier, paint failure can expose vehicle components to rust, corrosion, and other environmental damage. The lawsuit contends that the likelihood of three-stage paint to peel or delaminate is well understood by automakers, thereby necessitating industry-standard protocols to help manufacturers and suppliers communicate and improve production designs. The case claims that Honda knew or should have known of the alleged defect through pre-sale testing, industry standards governing paint durability, complaints, and dealership reports. The complaint also points to a Canadian class action lawsuit, Daunais v. Honda Canada Inc., which resulted in an up to $27 million settlement in 2022, as further evidence that Honda had apparently been aware of white-paint-related issues. "Despite its various sources of pre-sale knowledge of the Paint Defect, Honda and its authorized dealers marketed the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs for premium prices based on purported durability, high value, and ability to retain value even though it knew that the Paint Defect would severely impact those attributes for the Class Vehicles during their reasonably expected life," the filing asserts. The Honda white paint class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals or entities that purchased or leased a class vehicle in California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington or Wisconsin. [GN] AMERICAN INCOME: Faces Congiunti Suit Over Telephone Spam --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CONGIUNTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-01395-JRS-MKK (S.D. Ind., July 1, 2026) contends that AIL has contributed to a barrage of telephone spam by illegally calling Plaintiff Michael Congiunti and thousands of others like him. According to the complaint, despite placing his number on the National Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) and requesting several times that the calls stop, Congiunti continued to receive unwanted telephone solicitation calls from AIL. Congiunti wants these calls to stop. Congiunti brings this action individually, and on behalf of putative class members, to seek injunctive relief and damages. Congiunti is the residential telephone subscriber of the cell phone number (973) 765-3099. Congiunti uses this phone number at home. He makes and takes personal calls and text messages on this phone number. This is Congiunti's only phone number, and he does not use it as a business number, says the suit. AIL sells life, accident, and supplemental health insurance to individuals throughout the United States. AIL places telephone solicitation calls to potential customers to solicit its insurance plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reid Hudson, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 7533 S. Center View Ct. #4424 West Jordan, UT 84084 Telephone: (385) 440-4129 E-mail: reid.hudson@thehqfirm.com AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $19MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that investors who purchased AmTrust Financial Services Inc. common stock issued in or traceable to the company's November 2015 public offering or AmTrust 6.95% noncumulative preferred stock, Series F, issued in or traceable to its September 2016 public offering may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. AmTrust, certain officers and directors and the underwriters of the offerings agreed to pay $19 million to partially settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging they made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the offering documents for these two stocks in violation of the federal securities laws. The partial settlement resolves claims against the settling defendants only, and the litigation continues against non-settling defendant, BDO USA P.C. Who can file a claim? The settlement includes individuals and entities who purchased AmTrust common stock issued in or traceable to the November 2015 offering or AmTrust 6.95% noncumulative preferred stock, Series F, issued in or traceable to the September 2016 offering, and incurred damages as a result. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- The actual beneficial purchaser or a legal representative must submit the claim. -- All joint purchasers must sign the claim form. -- Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of their authority. -- Each separate legal entity must submit one claim form covering the transactions in all of its accounts. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $19,000,000. The amount each class member will receive depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares purchased in or traceable to each offering -- The timing of each purchase, sale and holding -- The total recognized losses of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average distribution is approximately $2.09 per common share and $0.45 per Series F preferred share before deductions for taxes, notice and administration costs, and attorneys' fees and expenses. -- If the court approves the requested attorneys' fees and expenses, the average cost will be approximately $0.76 per common share and $0.16 per Series F preferred share, for an estimated net average recovery of approximately $1.33 per common share and $0.29 per Series F preferred share. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will allocate at least two-thirds of the net settlement fund to common stock claims and no more than one-third to Series F preferred stock claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate a recognized loss amount for each documented purchase using the statutory damages formula under Section 11(e) of the Securities Act: -- For shares of common stock purchased in or traceable to the November 2015 offering and sold before Feb. 27, 2017, the recognized loss is $0. -- For common stock shares sold from Feb. 27, 2017, through April 28, 2017, the recognized loss is $27.66 minus the sale price per share. -- For common stock shares sold from April 29, 2017, through July 26, 2017, the recognized loss is $27.66 minus the sale price per share (up to $11.61 per share). -- For common stock shares held at the end of July 26, 2017, the recognized loss is $11.61 per share. -- For shares of Series F preferred stock purchased in or traceable to the September 2016 offering from Sept. 21, 2016, through April 10, 2017, and sold before Feb. 27, 2017, the recognized loss is $0. -- For Series F preferred shares sold from Feb. 27, 2017, through April 28, 2017, the recognized loss is the purchase price per share (up to $25) minus the sale price per share. -- For Series F preferred shares sold from April 29, 2017, through Nov. 10, 2017, the recognized loss is the purchase price per share (up to $25) minus the greater of the sale price per share or $22.10. -- For Series F Preferred shares held at the end of Nov. 10, 2017, the recognized loss is the purchase price per share (up to $25) minus $22.10. -- If a recognized loss amount calculates to zero or a negative number, the settlement administrator will set it to zero. -- If total recognized claims exceed the net settlement fund, the settlement administrator will reduce payments on a pro rata basis. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim an AmTrust securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Oct. 7, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: AmTrust Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide transaction information for their AmTrust shares, including: -- Trade dates -- Number of shares purchased or sold and the total purchase or sale price -- Number of common stock shares held at the close of trading on Nov. 10, 2015, and July 26, 2017 -- Number of Series F Preferred stock shares held at the close of trading on Sept. 20, 2016, and Nov. 10, 2017 Class members must also provide documentation to support their transactions in AmTrust securities. Acceptable proof includes: -- Broker confirmation slips -- Broker statements -- Other documents adequately evidencing transactions in AmTrust common stock or Series F Preferred stock Payout options -- Physical check -- Electronic payment $19 million settlement fund The $19,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $6,333,333.33 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $550,000 -- Service awards to plaintiffs: Up to $40,000 total -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Oct. 7, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Oct. 28, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Nov. 19, 2026 When is the AmTrust securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it completes claims processing and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged AmTrust, certain officers and directors and the underwriters of the offerings made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in the offering documents for the November 2015 common stock offering and September 2016 Series F preferred stock offering, in violation of the federal securities laws. The plaintiffs claimed these statements harmed investors who purchased shares issued in or traceable to the offerings. The settling defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing, liability and damages but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainty of continued litigation. The partial settlement does not resolve the plaintiffs' claims against non-settling defendant BDO USA P.C., and there is no guarantee of any further recovery. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $0.29-$1.33 per share Deadline: October 7, 2026 [GN] ARCARE AGED: Faces Class Action for Charging Illegal High Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Guardian reports that residents at one of Australia's largest aged care providers have launched a class action lawsuit alleging fees for services such as high teas and exercise classes were illegally charged to clients who cannot use them due to immobility and other issues. The suit, filed in the federal court, alleges residents of more than 50 Arcare aged care facilities across four states were charged a daily "additional services fee" by Arcare embedded within a "signature package" between July 2020 and July 2026. This includes fees paid by residents who are immobile, unable to swallow, or cognitively impaired. The statement of claim alleges that Arcare Aged Care, a for-profit provider, charged these fees for services, such as meals, that it is already legally obliged to provide, but also for additional services residents could not use. According to aged care legislation, providers can only charge fees for additional care and services where a resident agrees to it, is able to access and benefit from the services, and has the capacity to make use of them. It is alleged Arcare engaged in unconscionable conduct because residents were in an unequal bargaining position, through their reliance on aged care due to medical or social needs. These residents were told the signature packages were non-negotiable and that the additional services fee was a mandatory condition of admission, the statement of claim alleges. "The signature package included mandatory services that Arcare was obliged to provide . . . and could not lawfully charge for as additional services," the statement of claim says. Arcare has yet to file its response to the court. An Arcare spokesperson said as the matter was currently before the court, "it would not be appropriate to comment on the allegations or the legal proceedings". "Arcare remains committed to providing high-quality care and services that support each resident's choice, independence and dignity," the spokesperson said. "We value feedback from our residents and their families." High teas, Foxtel and alcohol allegedly charged The statement of claim alleges bundled fees for high teas, a choice of menu and alcoholic beverages were charged to residents who were on prescribed dietary regimes, receiving enteral nutrition or pureed or modified texture diets, or who lacked capacity to make menu selections. It is also alleged that some residents who lacked the capacity to operate a television or comprehend audio-visual content, or who were unconscious, were charged for Foxtel, newspapers and wireless internet. Residents "who were non-ambulatory or confined to bed could not participate in bus outings and exercise classes", the statement of claim says. It is further alleged Arcare used financial information about residents to set fees, charging individual residents a price that reflected what Arcare assessed the resident could afford rather than the true value of the services provided. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Dianne Strickland, an 82-year-old former resident of Arcare Carnegie in Victoria. According to the statement of claim, Strickland suffers from osteoarthritic pain and reduced mobility, and was physically unable to participate in or benefit from the exercise classes and bus outings she was being charged for. It is alleged she had no knowledge of how to use wireless internet technology and, despite not owning a smartphone, tablet, or computer, was continually billed a daily rate for in-room wifi. The class action represents anyone who lived at an Arcare facility in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland or the ACT during the six-year period and paid the additional services fee. Damian Scattini, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which is acting for the applicants, said the case alleges Arcare took advantage of vulnerable residents or their families by charging for services "that were either never delivered or that Arcare was already obliged to provide under their agreements and under Australian aged-care legislation". "That is not an oversight," he said. "That is a systemic failure that caused real financial harm to people who had already placed their trust and wellbeing in Arcare's hands." He said it is estimated that during the claim period about 7,500 residents were affected. "We are determined to hold Arcare to account and to recover what these residents are owed." [GN] BANNER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Patient Privacy Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who logged in to a Banner Health patient account (previously called the MyBanner patient portal) between June 1, 2020, and Nov. 22, 2023, may be eligible to claim $20 from a class action settlement. There are about 1,028,000 individuals in the class. Banner Health agreed to resolve a lawsuit alleging it improperly disclosed patient information to third parties through tracking technologies on its website and applications. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They had a Banner Health patient account (formerly known as the MyBanner patient portal). -- They logged into their account using one of Banner Health's web properties or applications at any time from June 1, 2020, through Nov. 22, 2023. -- They are an individual and not a business or organization. If an individual received a notice about this settlement, records indicate they are a class member. How much can class members get? Each class member who submits a valid claim can receive a $20 cash payment. In addition, all class members will automatically receive a code to enroll in one year of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, a privacy protection service that includes dark web monitoring, VPN In Touch, password scan, private search functionality, password defense, digital vault and data broker opt-out services. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can complete the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Settlement Administrator – 83411, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 The claim deadline is Sept. 5, 2026. Payout options -- Venmo (online claims only) -- PayPal (online claims only) -- Zelle (online claims only) -- Paper check (mailed claims) Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will cover: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $3,750,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each to eight representatives ($20,000 total) -- CyEx Privacy Shield Pro benefit: Cost determined by number of valid claims -- Payments to eligible class members: $20 per valid claim Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 5, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 5, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 10, 2026 When is the Banner Health settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to eligible class members approximately 60 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Banner Health disclosed personally identifiable information and protected health information of patient portal users to third parties, such as Meta (Facebook) and Google through tracking technologies on its website. The plaintiffs claimed Banner Health violated privacy and other laws. Banner Health denied all wrongdoing. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $20 Deadline: September 5, 2026 [GN] BB OPCO LLC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dominick Martin, and others similarly situated v. BB OPCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.BROOKSBROTHERS.COM, Case No. 26STCV08972 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07124. On June 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed and served his First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint amended the Initial Complaint to assert class allegations for the first time, thereby converting the action from an individual lawsuit into a putative class action. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action: violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1750; and violation of Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kristine R. Argentine, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 Email: kargentine@seyfarth.com - and - Matthew C. Catalano, Esq. Majesty Eve L. Jala, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10018-1405 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Facsimile: (212) 218-5526 Email: mcatalano@seyfarth.com mjala@seyfarth.com - and - K. Scott Bays, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: ksbays@seyfarth.com BIOGEN INC: $18.9MM Class Settlement Claims Deadline Set Sept. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Biogen Inc. common stock between June 8, 2021, and July 12, 2021, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Biogen agreed to pay $18.9 million to settle a securities class action lawsuit alleging the company, Michel Vounatsos and Alisha Alaimo made materially false or misleading statements during a June 8, 2021, investor call about Aduhelm, Biogen's treatment for Alzheimer's disease. The lawsuit claimed statements about payer engagement on Aduhelm's pricing and presumed Medicare coverage caused Biogen common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period. Who can file a claim? The settlement includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Biogen Inc. between June 8, 2021, and July 12, 2021, inclusive. Additional details -- Both individuals and entities can be class members. -- The actual beneficial owner or owners, or the legal representatives of such owners, must submit the claim. -- All joint beneficial owners must sign the claim form. -- Executors, administrators, guardians, conservators and trustees may submit claims on behalf of others and must provide proof of their authority. -- Participants in and beneficiaries of a plan covered by ERISA should include only shares purchased or acquired outside of the plan. The plan's trustees may submit claims based on the plan's purchases or acquisitions. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $18,900,000. The amount each class member will receive depends on several factors: -- The number of valid claims submitted -- The number of shares purchased or acquired during the class period -- The timing of each investor purchase, sale and holding -- The total recognized claims of all claimants The settlement administrator will distribute payments on a pro rata basis according to the court-approved plan of allocation: -- The estimated average recovery is approximately $1.36 per eligible share before deductions for taxes, notice and administration expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses. -- Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on individual claims and the total number of valid claims. -- The settlement administrator will calculate a recognized loss amount for each purchase or acquisition of Biogen common stock during the class period based on when class members bought and sold their shares. -- For shares sold before June 24, 2021, the recognized loss is $0. -- For shares sold between June 24, 2021, and July 14, 2021, inclusive, the recognized loss is the lesser of the decline in artificial inflation during the holding period or the purchase price minus the sale price. -- For shares sold between July 15, 2021, and the close of trading on Oct. 12, 2021, the recognized loss is the least of the decline in artificial inflation during the holding period, the purchase price minus the sale price or the purchase price minus the average closing price between July 15, 2021, and the date of sale. -- For shares held as of the close of trading on Oct. 12, 2021, the recognized loss is the lesser of the decline in artificial inflation during the holding period or the purchase price minus $318.54, the average closing price of Biogen stock between July 15, 2021, and Oct. 12, 2021. -- For shares purchased or acquired on or after July 13, 2021, the recognized loss is $0. -- The settlement administrator will set any recognized loss that calculates to a negative number to zero. -- Class members whose payment would be less than $10 will not receive a payout. How to claim a Biogen securities class action settlement payment Class members may file a claim online or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail or email it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Sept. 24, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Biogen Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063 Proof or documentation required to submit a claim All class members must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or full taxpayer identification number. They must also provide holding, purchase and sale information, including: -- Number of Biogen common shares held as of the opening of trading on June 8, 2021 -- Trade dates for purchases and sales from June 8, 2021, through Oct. 12, 2021 -- Number of shares purchased, acquired or sold and the total purchase, sale or acquisition price -- Number of Biogen common shares held as of the close of trading on Oct. 12, 2021 Class members must also provide documentation to support their transactions. Acceptable proof includes: -- Monthly brokerage or other investment account statements -- Trade confirmation slips -- A signed letter from a broker on firm letterhead containing the transactional and holding information found in a confirmation slip or account statement -- Other equivalent proof of transactions Payout options -- Physical check $18.9 million settlement fund The $18,900,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $6,300,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $1,500,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 25, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 24, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Sept. 29, 2026 When is the Biogen securities class action settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it processes all claims and the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Biogen, Michel Vounatsos and Alisha Alaimo made materially false or misleading statements during a June 8, 2021, investor call, misrepresenting that Biogen engaged with payers in setting Aduhelm's price and that it automatically presumed Medicare fee-for-service coverage with FDA approval. The plaintiffs claimed these statements caused Biogen common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period. The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability but agreed to settle to eliminate the uncertainty, burden and expense of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $1.36 per share before deductions Deadline: September 24, 2026 [GN] BLACK ROCK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. ("Black Rock Coffee" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BRCB) and reminds investors of the August 17, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Black Rock Coffee's new store openings were leading to a cannibalization of its existing services and revenue; (2) Black Rock Coffee overstated the manner in which its expansion strategy was tailored to avoid "sales transfer"; (3) as a result of "sales transfer," the Company's financial results were materially impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Black Rock Coffee's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Black Rock Coffee class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/BRCB or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Investors Regarding the Black Rock Coffee Holdings Securities Class Action Lawsuit: What is the Black Rock Coffee Bar securities fraud lawsuit about? The Black Rock Coffee Bar securities fraud lawsuit is a federal securities class action alleging that Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRCB) and its executives made false and misleading statements to investors in connection with the Company's September 2025 IPO by overstating the effectiveness of its expansion strategy and concealing that new store openings were cannibalizing revenue from existing locations through "sales transfer." While the Company touted its expansion strategy as carefully tailored to avoid sales transfer, the complaint alleges that this cannibalization was in fact materially impacting the Company's financial results, rendering management's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects materially misleading. Who may be eligible to participate in the Black Rock Coffee Bar class action lawsuit? Investors who purchased or acquired Black Rock Coffee Bar (BRCB) securities may be eligible to participate in the Black Rock Coffee securities class action if they: (a) purchased Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's September 2025 IPO; and/or (b) purchased BRCB securities between September 12, 2025 and May 12, 2026 -- the Class Period -- and suffered financial losses as a result. Participation as a class member does not require taking any affirmative legal action; eligible investors may recover losses simply by remaining members of the class. Whistleblowers, former Black Rock Coffee employees, and others with relevant information about the Company's conduct are also encouraged to come forward. What is a lead plaintiff, and how can I seek appointment in the Black Rock Coffee Bar lawsuit? A lead plaintiff in the Black Rock Coffee Bar class action is a court-appointed investor -- typically the one with the largest financial interest in the case -- who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of all class members. Any Black Rock Coffee investor who purchased BRCB securities during the Class Period or in connection with the IPO may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice. The deadline to seek lead plaintiff appointment is August 17, 2026. Importantly, choosing not to seek the lead plaintiff role does not affect an investor's ability to share in any recovery obtained for the class. What should investors do if they purchased Black Rock Coffee Bar stock during the Class Period? Investors who purchased Black Rock Coffee Bar, Inc. (BRCB) securities in connection with the September 2025 IPO or between September 12, 2025 and May 12, 2026 and suffered losses should contact Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP immediately to discuss their legal rights. The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Black Rock Coffee Bar securities class action is August 17, 2026. To speak directly with securities litigation partner Josh Wilson, call 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310), or visit www.faruqilaw.com/BRCB for more information. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/7f60c456-51b6-4096-a862-d5d3beda6cc5 [GN] BLANK ROME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sloan and Mike Scarcella of Reuters report that Blank Rome is the latest U.S. law firm to face a proposed class action for allegedly failing to protect clients' sensitive personal information -- including Social Security numbers -- after hackers targeted the firm in a May data breach. Law firms, like other major U.S. companies, have been increasingly targeted by cyberattacks in recent years. Law firms can be particularly attractive to hackers because they routinely store large volumes of sensitive client information, including financial, business and litigation-related records. Here ⁠are the details: -- The lawsuit, filed Monday in Pennsylvania federal court, was brought by Laura Delapaz, a California resident who said in her complaint that she was among 57,554 current, former and prospective Blank Rome clients whose personal information was compromised in a May 21 data breach. -- Delapaz alleged the firm waited more than a month to disclose the breach to affected clients and that names, birth dates, addresses and taxpayer information numbers were among the compromised data. -- Blank Rome said in a statement ⁠Monday that it experienced a "limited incident" in which a "group that targets law firms" called one of its attorneys posing as the firm's IT department and misled the lawyer into uploading files to an external file hosting website. -- "We believe the lawsuit has no ⁠merit and will aggressively defend against it," the firm said. -- Delapaz's attorneys with Chicago firm Strauss Borrelli did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. The lawsuit alleges Blank Rome "failed ⁠to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols." -- A growing number of law firms have faced similar data ⁠breach lawsuits. Fox Rothschild; Wiley Rein; Pillsbury; and Kelley Drye are among the firms that have been sued in the past year. Some firms, including Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, have reached settlements in recent years. [GN] BRITANNICA FLOOR: Ordered to Pay $5,000 in "Jackson" Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Glenn Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Britannica Floor Covering, Inc., and Michael Kahoud, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-CV-3526 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in a Memorandum and Order. Jackson, a former general laborer for Britannica, alleged that from April 2016 through December 2019 he was paid below minimum wage and received no overtime, that he was not paid on a weekly basis as required for manual workers, that he received no compliant wage statements, and that he was owed prevailing wages of $68.00 per hour as a third-party beneficiary of public works contracts Britannica performed for New York City. Defendants never appeared, and the clerk entered default in August 2023. An earlier default motion was denied for failure to comply with local service and damages-proof rules; Jackson refiled a second motion, supported by declarations from himself and Amit Kumar. The court applied the NYLL's six-year limitations period, finding Jackson's claims timely for conduct on or after May 10, 2017. It also found Britannica and its principal, Michael Kahoud, qualified as Jackson's joint employers under the four-factor test from Carter v. Dutchess Community College, based on allegations that Kahoud controlled hiring, work schedules, and pay rates. On liability, the court held Jackson adequately pleaded a breach of contract claim as a third-party beneficiary under NYLL Section 220, since he alleged he was a manual worker performing covered work on identified public projects at a stated prevailing rate. It likewise found he sufficiently alleged unpaid overtime and, addressing a split among New York's appellate courts, concluded that NYLL Section 191(1)(a) carries a private right of action for late wage payment, aligning with the majority of district courts to consider the question after Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch. However, the court noted a May 2025 amendment limiting liquidated damages under Section 191 where an employer paid at least semi-monthly and has no prior violation, and observed Jackson was paid biweekly. Despite finding liability plausible on these three wage theories, the court denied relief on them because Jackson failed to quantify how much time he spent performing prevailing-wage work, information New York law requires to calculate damages with reasonable certainty. Because his overtime and late-payment damages both depended on that same prevailing-wage calculation, the court could not determine those amounts either. It granted Jackson leave to amend the complaint to supply this evidence, with an amended pleading due by July 16, 2026. On the wage statement claim, the court applied the Second Circuit's standing framework from Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing, which requires a concrete injury tied to the missing notices, not just a bare statutory violation. It found Jackson met that bar because he alleged the absence of accurate statements kept him from realizing he was underpaid and from confronting Defendants sooner. The court awarded the statutory maximum of $5,000 under NYLL Section 198(1-d). The court deemed abandoned Jackson's complaint-stage requests for injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs, since he did not renew them in his default motion; Jackson had separately waived fees and costs for purposes of default while reserving the right to seek them if the case proceeds on the merits. Accordingly, the court granted default judgment on the wage statement claim and awarded $5,000 in statutory damages under the WTPA, while denying judgment on the prevailing wage, overtime, and timely payment claims pending amendment. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 2, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Su3VUf from PacerMonitor.com BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DELANEY BRYANT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Delaney Bryant, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Buffalo Exchange, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-8286, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 28, 2026, Judge Arun Subramanian entered judgment in favor of the Defendant, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is styled as Bryant v. Buffalo Exchange, Ltd., Case No. 26-1697, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DELANEY BRYANT, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, are represented by: David Zimmer, Esq. ZIMMER, CITRON & CLARKE LLP 711 Atlantic Avenue, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02111 - and - Julia Solomon-Strauss, Esq. ZIMMER, CITRON & CLARKE LLP 14 Ridge Square, NW, Suite 328 Washington, DC 20016 Defendant-Appellant BUFFALO EXCHANGE, LTD. is represented by: Lawrence Joseph Del Rossi, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 C&S WHOLESALE: Flores Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as NICEFORO FLORES, individually, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-3097, was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01091 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges two purported causes of action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wages. C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC distributes grocery products and provides food solutions across the wholesale grocery industry. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com CARDINAL GLASS: Boggs Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cody Boggs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-02852-34 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05711. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: payment of wages less than entitled in violation of RCW 49.46.090; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; failure to provide meal periods in violation of WAC 296-126-092; failure to provide and pay sick leave in violation of WAC 296-128-620; failure to pay all wages due at separation in violation of RCW 49.48.010; and willful refusal to pay wages. The Complaint seeks damages for alleged RCW and WAC violations and attorney fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Darren A. Feider, Esq. Tina M. Aiken, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Email: dfeider@sbj.law taiken@sbj.law CARMAX ENTERPRISE: Pedroso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmax Enterprise Services, LLC. The case is styled as Lais Pedroso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carmax Enterprise Services, LLC, Case No. 26STCV20863 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." CarMax, Inc. -- https://www.carmax.com/ -- is a used vehicle retailer based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com CDT SERVICE CORPORATION: Afzali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDT Service Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Momina Afzali, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDT Service Corporation, Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV015083 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." CDT Service Corporation is a private organization offering inpatient treatment in Loomis, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justen A. Lipeles, Esq. 1060 Aviation Blvd., 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: 310-322-2211 CIMINOCARE: Elias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CIMINOCARE, et al. The case is styled as Hafiza Elias, all others similarly situated v. CIMINOCARE, Does 1 to 10, Case No. 26CV015517 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." CIMINOCARE -- https://www.ciminocare.com/ -- offer specialized support for individuals with hearing, vision, mobility impairments, and other disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq. Kiley Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com CITADEL SECURITIES: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in Genius securities, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Citadel Securities LLC ("Citadel") and Virtu Americas LLC ("Virtu" and, together with Citadel, the "Defendants"). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether the Defendants and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until August 28, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Genius securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known as "spoofing," which involves submitting and then cancelling buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute them. The purpose of these "baiting orders" was to mislead other market participants about the true level of supply and demand for Genius securities, or about the stock's price volatility, thereby influencing the market price of Genius to benefit Defendants' own trading positions. The alleged manipulation also increased investors' transaction costs by inflating the bid-ask spread for Genius stock. Defendants entered thousands of these baiting orders on U.S. stock exchanges to create the false impression that Genius's stock price reflected genuine supply-and-demand and volatility dynamics, while simultaneously profiting by absorbing and reselling their customers' order flow at prices favorable to Defendants. The complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period, sharp declines in Genius's stock price consistently coincided with substantial spikes in Defendants' spoofing activity. For example, during the week of February 10, 2025, Defendants built significant short positions in Genius stock and reaped substantial trading profits: Citadel traded more than 23 million shares of Genius off-exchange, accounting for nearly half of all off-exchange trading in the stock, while Virtu traded nearly 11 million shares, accounting for more than 20% of all off-exchange trading. Together, Defendants comprised nearly 70% of all off-exchange trading in Genius stock that week, as short volume surged from a low of 53% to more than 61%. As a result, Genius's stock price decline by 22% despite the absence of any new material, company-specific news. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] CITISTAFF SOLUTION: Alfaro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citistaff Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Kevin A. Alfaro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Citistaff Solutions Inc., Romero's Engineering Inc. d/b/a American Turn-Key Fabricators, Case No. 26STCV19925 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Citistaff is a staffing services company that provides employment solutions for both employers and job seekers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com COMMUNITY CAPITAL BANK: Gholson Files ECOA Suit in N.D. Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Capital Bank. The case is styled as Rosie Gholson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Capital Bank, Case No. 2:26-cv-00290 (N.D. Ind., June 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL: Werts Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Credit Pros International LLC. The case is styled as Virgil Werts, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Credit Pros International LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80775-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Credit Pros -- https://thecreditpros.com/ -- is a financial technology firm that assists its clients in the removal of erroneous, inaccurate, and unverifiable information from their credit history.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CURRENEX INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Edmar Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CURRENEX, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Edmar Financial Company, LLC, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Currenex, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06598, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs alleged that SS Global and Currenex, Inc., conspired with a subset of participants, who traded on the Currenex Platform -- Defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman Sachs"), HC Technologies, LLC ("HC Tech"), State Street Bank, and unidentified Doe Defendants (collectively, the "Trading Defendants") -- to "rig" auctions for foreign exchange transactions. On Nov. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and appoint class counsel, which Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted in part and denied in part on June 11, 2026. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and appoint class counsel is granted, but it is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. The appellate case is styled as Edmar Financial Company, LLC, et al. v. Currenex, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1739, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 East Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Ste. #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 Email: Max.Morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com Defendants-Petitioners CURRENEX, INC., et al. are represented by: Eric A. Kuwana, Esq. 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 - and - B. Parker Miller, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 - and - Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., Esq. Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Hardy Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Taylor Hardy, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV011218 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01113. The Complaint names "DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive" as defendants and pleads causes of action under: the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); the "California Privacy Rights Act"; and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erica Rutner, Esq. Dasha Sominskaia, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 388 Market Street, Ste. 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 644-0914 Facsimile: (415) 644-0978 Email: erutner@cozen.com dsominskaia@cozen.com DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of DNOW Inc. (NYSE: DNOW) resulting from allegations that DNOW Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased DNOW Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53946 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 20, 2026, StockStory published an article entitled "Why DNOW (DNOW) Shares Are Getting Obliterated Today." The article stated that DNOW shares fell "after the company reported disappointing fourth-quarter 2025 financial results, which included a significant loss and missed Wall Street's expectations." On this news, DNOW's stock fell 19.1% on February 20, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DREAM PALACE: Hammergren Seeks Minimum Pay for Dancers Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHAEDRA HAMMERGREN and AMANDA PECKHAM, individually and for others similarly situated v. DREAM PALACE d/b/a LIBERTY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC and DAVID BENZ, Case No. 2:26-cv-04639-SPL (D. Ariz., July 1, 2026) contends that the Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and other dancers as independent contractors despite exercising substantial control over their compensation structure and working conditions. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs at the federal- and state-mandated minimum wage rates. The Defendants' conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act, which require non-exempt employees to be compensated at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m), violates the FLSA. The Plaintiffs bring a class and collective action to recover the unpaid minimum wage and tips owed to them individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, current and former, of Defendants. Dream Palace required and/or permitted Phaedra Hammergren and Amanda Peckham to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage rate. The Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiffs whatsoever for any hours worked. The Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. Moreover, the Plaintiffs were required to divide tips with the Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips, the suit alleges. The Defendants operate the strip club called Dream Palace.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Dr., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal carl@fitz.legal EASTERN SMILES: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EASTERN SMILES OPCO, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08035 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.easterndental.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com EMORY HEALTHCARE: Harris Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela Harris, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-03602-VMC (N.D. Ga., June 26, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff was hired to work for Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt employee, and generally worked at least 40 hours per week during all relevant periods. Although Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and State Law Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and State Law Class overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Harris was employed by Defendant from approximately May of 2023 through May of 2024 as a certified surgical technologist, at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory Midtown in Atlanta, Georgia. Emory Healthcare holds itself out as "the most comprehensive academic health system in Georgia with 11 hospital and provider locations across the state."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Katharine W. Batchelor, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 421 N. Harrington St., Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (855) 496-7500 Email: hsegui@leesegui.com mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com kbatchelor@leesegui.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com - and - Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Email: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com EPIC SECURITY WORKS: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epic Security Works Corporation. The case is styled as Cornelius Ford, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Epic Security Works Corporation, Case No. 26CV195460 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." EPIC Security Works -- https://www.epicsecurityworks.com/ -- provides professional security services for businesses, venues, and private clients throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Michele Supanich, Esq. 1801 Century Park E, Ste 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-803-3638 Email: lms@melmedlaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Agrees to Settle FCRA Suit for $2.2-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a duplicate reporting letter from Equifax in August or September 2022 may qualify to submit a claim for up to $600 from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes 37,651 people. Equifax Information Services LLC agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting the same collection account more than once on certain consumer credit reports. Who can submit a claim for an Equifax payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States. -- Equifax identified them as an individual it mailed a duplicate reporting letter to in August or September 2022. -- The duplicate reporting letter notified them that their Equifax credit file may have shown a duplicate collection account at the same time as an inquiry. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment estimated to be up to $600. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring: All class members will receive six free months of Equifax Complete credit monitoring. Services include consumer reports and credit score monitoring, alerts for key changes and up to $500,000 in coverage for certain out-of-pocket expenses related to identity theft. How to claim a class action rebate Class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Bradberry v. Equifax, c/o Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Required claim information To submit an online claim, class members must provide the ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. -- Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $2,200,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: $733,333.33 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $75,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Equifax will pay the following costs separately: -- Additional attorneys' fees for practice changes: $425,000 -- Credit monitoring services for all class members: $2,247,764.70 Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Sept. 1, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 1, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 6, 2026 When is the Equifax Information Services settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. It will send credit monitoring information to all class members no later than 90 days after the final approval date. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Equifax allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting the same collection account more than once on some consumer credit reports. The plaintiff claimed this duplicate reporting led to inaccurate credit information and potential harm to consumers. Equifax denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation and a possible trial. As part of the settlement, Equifax agreed to ensure it removed all duplicate collection accounts from class member credit files and implemented changes to avoid duplicate reporting for a period of six months. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $600 plus credit monitoring Deadline: September 1, 2026 [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stone Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Theresa Stone, Carter Sullivan, Edalia Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services LLC, TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solution, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00195 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-mc-01801-KMN to the proceeding. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 S. Pearl St., 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 434-0665 - and - George Carpinello, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 10 N. Pearl Street, 4th Floor Albany, NY 12207 - and - George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Phone: (702) 880-5554 - and - Matthew S. Decker, Esq. Seth A. Goldberg, Esq. PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C. 2005 Market St., Ste 3150 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 817-7596 Email: mdecker@pashmanstein.com sgoldberg@pashmanstein.com - and - Scott Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@brysonpllc.com ESR INVESTMENT INC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. ESR INVESTMENT INC., and BELLA VITA TAPAS Y VINO LLC D/B/A 2 PLACE RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:26-cv-24512-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and commercial gas station business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. ESR INVESTMENT INC., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, including the parking areas, walkways and all areas open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FASHION NOVA: Shavies TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charleen Shavies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, Inc. doing business as: Fashion Nova, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03523 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07043-CAS-CTS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the top online fashion store for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit Roy Venkatesh, Esq. Faythe E. Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: vv@plgdamage.com fgutierrez@plgdamage.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4949 Fax: (312) 767-9192 Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com - and - Grace McElroy, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-5217 Phone: (628) 295-2028 Email: gmcelroy@beneschlaw.com FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Afrasiabi Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federation Internationale de Football Association, et al. The case is styled as Lotfolah Kaveh Afrasiabi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Federation Internationale de Football Association, Gianni Infantino, Anonymous VAR Officials, Case No. 1:26-cv-13002-DLC (D. Mass., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) -- https://www.fifa.com/en -- is an international self-regulatory governing body of association football, beach soccer, and futsal.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FIRST FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that First Financial Security agreed to a $1.2 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach. The First Financial Security settlement benefits individuals whose private information was compromised in a data breach on or around Oct. 17, 2023. The First Financial Security data breach occurred in October 2023 and compromised sensitive consumer information, such as Social Security numbers. Affected consumers took legal action against the company, arguing that First Financial Security could have prevented the breach with reasonable cybersecurity measures. First Financial Security is a financial services company that offers life insurance, annuities and other services. First Financial Security has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the First Financial Security settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for data breach-related expenses. Class members can claim up to $500 in unreimbursed expenses, such as bank fees, credit expenses, communication charges, credit report costs and up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $20 per hour. Class members can also receive two years of free medical and credit monitoring services through CyEx Medical Shield Complete. Class members can use the enrollment code included in their mailed settlement notice to enroll for these services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 18, 2026. The final approval hearing for the First Financial Security settlement is scheduled for Nov. 9, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 20, 2026. Who's Eligible The First Financial settlement benefits individuals whose private information was compromised in a data breach on or around Oct. 17, 2023. Potential Award Up to $500 in out-of-pocket expenses Proof of Purchase Documentation of expenses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, invoices and bills Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/20/2026 Case Name Price v. First Financial Security Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10985-MCS-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 11/09/2026 Settlement Website FirstFinancialSettlement.com Claims Administrator First Financial Data Incident Settlement c/o Claims Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@FirstFinancialSettlement.com (833) 386-6593 Class Counsel Thiago M. Coelho Chumahan B. Bowen Lauren M. Lendzion Jennifer M. Leinbach Jesenia M. Martinez Jesse S. Chen WILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC Defense Counsel Ian A. Stewart Adam E. Wayne WILSON ELSER MOSKOWTIZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP [GN] FIRST GUARDIAN: Investors Sues Over Superannuation Fund Collapses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nassim Khadem, writing for ABC News, reports that Natasha Langby feels she has nothing left to lose. The 55-year-old says she pumped tens of thousands of dollars of her retirement savings into First Guardian through the Netwealth super platform. She is one of 6,000 people who lost a total of $446 million when First Guardian collapsed last year. In December, Netwealth reimbursed about $100 million to about 1,000 First Guardian investors, including the money Ms Langby invested. However, her payout did not include the compounding impact -- the amount of superannuation she would have accumulated had her money stayed in a performing fund rather than one that collapsed. Ms Langby said she made a complaint through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), but was not successful. "They just couldn't get anywhere with it," she told ABC News. "That's when I contacted Jason from Gordon Legal and said, 'look, are you guys doing a class action because I just think this is ridiculous'." Gordon Legal and Keily McCrosson are jointly investigating potential claims involving the First Guardian and Shield Master Funds, including those who invested through Macquarie and Netwealth. More than 100 investors reach out Gordon Legal's James Naughton said some people who invested in Macquarie and Netwealth may not have been fully compensated for all their losses, even if they have already received payouts. "We've already had over 100 people contact us in a really short period of time, and we expect more people to contact us over the next few weeks," he said. In addition to the 6,000 First Guardian investors who lost out, another 5,800 people invested $480 million of their retirement savings into Shield, which also later collapsed. Of the total $480 million worth of investments made in Shield, Macquarie reimbursed $321 million to 3,000 investors. "Macquarie and Netwealth entered into agreements with ASIC to pay back the capital that had been lost by those investors . . . but those investors are still in the dark and haven't been compensated fully," Mr Naughton argued. "In particular, they haven't been compensated for the fact that during the time after the collapse of First Guardian, they were out of their money for a significant amount of time, and they lost the opportunity to have that money in their super funds earning money for them for their retirement." He said the purpose of super was to have money in a fund earning interest "so that people can have a nest egg for their retirement". "If you take money out at the start and just put the same amount of money back, you're not compensating people fully for the amount that they've lost," he said. "We're talking about thousands of people, thousands of investors, and we're talking about at least tens and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation that still hasn't been paid to Macquarie and Netwealth investors." Macquarie and Netwealth have been contacted, but both declined to comment. Mr Naughton said many investors were still confused about what had happened. "Some people don't fully understand yet. It takes them a while to understand that they've actually lost money," he said. Investors mull over options Investors could pursue other avenues to get compensation, such as through AFCA. Melinda Kee lost about $370,000 by investing in First Guardian. Ms Kee, who leads investor advocacy group SOS Save Our Super, received a determination from AFCA in her favour. That determination is being challenged by Interpac -- the licensee of the financial advice firm that helped move her money into First Guardian -- and, as a result, AFCA has had to put all determinations related to First Guardian and Shield cases linked to Interprac on hold. But Ms Kee still believed AFCA is the best avenue for investors to get money back and noted that, unlike class actions, which can involve hefty legal fees if there is a win, individuals lodging through AFCA can do so for free. "Even though the AFCA process is incredibly cumbersome and it's a long process, doing a class action is also a long drawn-out process," she told ABC News. "My recommendation strongly is for people to lodge their AFCA complaint." Mr Naughton hoped that investors would instead join the class action, saying "AFCA has some limitations in terms of what it can resolve" since many of the cases focus on the role that financial advisers and their licensee played, rather than on the super platforms that hosted the investments. "What we're really focused on is a claim against the superannuation trustee," he said. "That's ultimately the entity that we think is legally responsible to make sure that if it's promoting or offering a fund on its platform, that it has done its proper due diligence to check and understand that." Ms Langby said a class action may be her best bet. "You can't just say to somebody, 'sorry, it [your superannuation] is gone'," she said. "I was just horrified that they think they can do this to people." [GN] FITON INC: Agrees to $2.5-Mil. VPPA Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals in the United States who had a FitOn account and accessed any FitOn video platform to watch a prerecorded video between Oct. 22, 2022, and May 29, 2026, may qualify to submit a claim for up to $10 from a class action settlement. FitOn Inc. agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it disclosed subscribers' personally identifiable information to third parties without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Who can file a claim for a VPPA settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States and had one or more accounts with a FitOn video platform. -- They accessed at least one video between Oct. 22, 2022, and May 29, 2026. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of up to $10. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: FitOn VPPA Settlement, PO Box 25191, Santa Ana, CA 92799 The claim deadline is Aug. 31, 2026. Required claim information To submit a claim online, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the official settlement notice they received. -- Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for mailed claims) Settlement fund breakdown The $2,500,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $833,333.33 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $3,500 each for three representatives ($10,500 total) -- Payments to claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: Aug. 31, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 31, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 6, 2026 When is the FitOn VPPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved class members approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged FitOn Inc. violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing subscribers' personally identifiable information with third parties without consent. FitOn denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $10 Deadline: August 31, 2026 [GN] FORT BEND COUNTY, TX: Overly Files Suit in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fort Bend County, Texas, et al. The case is styled as Jon Overly, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fort Bend County, Texas; Eric Fagan, in his official capacity as Sheriff; Aramark Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; John Does 1-10, Aramark Managers/Supervisors; Case No. 4:26-cv-05204 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Fort Bend County -- https://www.fortbendcountytx.gov/ -- located just southwest of Houston, is one of the fastest-growing, most diverse counties in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. FUTU HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with substantial losses that they have until August 25, 2026 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Futu Holdings Limited ("Futu" or the "Company") (NasdaqGM: FUTU), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Futu as above and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-futu/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by August 25, 2026. About the Lawsuit Futu and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with the requirements of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, including because it continued to conduct securities business, public fund sales business and futures business in mainland China without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval; (ii) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory penalties, including the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and other penalties; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were overstated; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The case is Tang v. Futu Holdings Limited, et al, 26-cv-05453. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms -- According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (877) 515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN] GCA EDUCATION SERVICES: Dunn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GCA Education Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Abri Dunn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GCA Education Services, Inc., GCA Services Group Inc., GCA Services Group of California Inc., GCA Services Group of Texas L.P., ABM Industry Groups LLC, Case No. 26STCV20818 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GCA Education Services Central States, Inc. was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes building cleaning and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Dixon Suit Over Vehicles' Engine Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00217-RWS (N.D. Ga., June 26, 2026) is a consumer class action concerning Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac vehicle brands equipped with defective turbocharged four-cylinder engines. According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles are equipped with a closed, sealed liquid engine cooling system in which coolant is intended to circulate continuously between the engine and the radiator in a contained loop to regulate operating temperature and prevent overheating. However, the Cooling System in the Class Vehicles suffer from the same design and/or manufacturing defects in the radiator hose quick-connect interface causing coolant to leak from the radiator hose connections early within the warranty period and the Class Vehicles' useful life. GM knew about the defect prior to the sale of the first Class Vehicle but did not warn Plaintiff and Class Members about the Defect, nor has it provided an adequate remedy, rendering GM's marketing of the Class Vehicles false and misleading, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers reasonably expect, based on GM's long-term advertising and branding, that GM's vehicles will operate without major mechanical failure during their expected useful lives. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class, seeks redress for GM's egregious and unconscionable misconduct, and asserts claims for: (1) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) breach of express and implied warranties; (3) fraudulent omission/concealment; and (4) violations of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act. General Motors LLC is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company based in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Overlook II 2839 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com GENERAL MOTORS: Granata Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cosimo Granata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDINGS LLC, and GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Case No. 26-2-02852-34 was removed from the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-12214-SDK-KGA. The Plaintiff alleges that he leased a 2024 GMC Sierra Denali that purportedly contained certain defective components that he claims rendered the vehicle vulnerable to theft. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Michigan law (Count I); breach of express warranty under Michigan law (Count II); breach of implied warranty under Michigan law (Count III); breach of implied warranty under the laws of numerous other states (Count IV); violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Count V); violation of the consumer protection statutes of various other states (Count VI); unjust enrichment (Count VII); and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count VIII).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: April N. Ross, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-3000 Fax: (202) 739-3001 Email: april.ross@morganlewis.com - and - Mohamed M. Awan, Esq. Samuel J. Seneczko, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Phone: (312) 324-1000 Fax: (312) 324-1001 Email: mohamed.awan@morganlewis.com Email: samuel.seneczko@morganlewis.com - and - Justin B. Weiner, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 822-7800 Fax: (248) 822-7000 Email: weiner@bsplaw.com GENIUS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Materially False Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Genius Group Limited (NYSE: GNS) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Genius securities between April 12, 2022 and May 30, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/GNS. Genius Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1. Defendants were engaged in a manipulative and illegal trading practice known as "spoofing," in which they placed and then canceled buy and sell orders for Genius securities without any genuine intent to execute those trades; 2. Defendants used these "baiting orders" to create a false impression of market supply, demand, and price volatility for Genius stock, thereby artificially influencing the market price for their own benefit; 3. Defendants' alleged spoofing scheme increased investors' transaction costs by widening the bid-ask spread for Genius securities; 4. Defendants entered thousands of deceptive orders on U.S. stock exchanges to make it appear that Genius' stock price reflected legitimate market activity while profiting from customer order flow at favorable prices; and 5. as a result, Defendants' public statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and market activity were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next for Genius Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/GNS. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Genius you have until August 28, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Genius Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Genius Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] GINZA 2 LLC: Aulen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Nelli Aulen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GINZA 2 LLC, d/b/a MARI VANNA RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:26-cv-05561 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. Throughout the statute of limitations period covered by these claims, Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant operated under a decision, policy and plan, and under common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines and rules of willfully failing and refusing to pay the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the appropriate overtime rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and willfully failing to keep records required by the FLSA even though the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been and are entitled to overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server from September 2024 to May 2026. GINZA 2, LLC owns and operates Mari Vanna restaurant in midtown Manhattan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 GKN AEROSPACE INC: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Doe, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GKN Aerospace, Inc., GKN Aerospace US Holdings LLC, GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems, Inc., DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02026-01572335-CU was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01692 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. GKN Aerospace -- https://www.gknaerospace.com/ -- is a global technology leader in the aerospace industry, with advanced aerostructures and engine systems on board 100000 flights a day.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Alexander Wyman, Esq. LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Ste 400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 485-1234 Fax: (213) 891-8763 Email: alex.wyman@lw.com GOODRX INC: Intercepts Web Users' Communications, Erakat Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MONZER ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-01094 (E.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) arises from the Defendant's deployment of interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who have accessed and used Defendant's website, www.goodrx.com which is a healthcare consumer website for public access and use. During his use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive mental-health subject matter, including a page concerning the signs of depression in men and a page concerning the treatments for major depressive disorder, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of his communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' communications with the Website, capture page URLs and corresponding page titles, and transmit those contents alongside persistent user identifiers to the operators of those third-party tracking technologies for the third parties' own commercial purposes, including healthcare-vertical advertising and audience-data ecosystems. The Defendant has done so for years, generating revenue from the surreptitious commercial exploitation of the contents of users' communications, including those of Plaintiff and the Class Members, it adds. GoodRx, Inc. owns, operates, and controls the website through which it publishes drug-pricing, condition, treatment, and other healthcare information to a national audience, including a significant audience of California users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com GRAVITY SLEEP LLC: Powell Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gravity Sleep LLC. The case is styled as Maria Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gravity Sleep LLC d/b/a Gravity Blanket, Case No. 812655/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Disability). Gravity Sleep LLC -- https://gravityblankets.com/ -- is a sleep and wellness brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com GRAYSON BENTLEY INC: Kramer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grayson Bentley, Inc. The case is styled as Beth Kramer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grayson Bentley, Inc. d/b/a Buttercloth, Case No. 158081/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Disability). Grayson Bentley, Inc. doing business as Buttercloth -- https://buttercloth.com/ -- covers Men's clothing, namely, shirts and jackets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com GROCERY OUTLET INC: Banegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Outlet, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Pablo Rodriguez Banegas, all others similarly situated v. Grocery Outlet, Inc., a California Corporation, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV015054 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Grocery Outlet -- https://investors.groceryoutlet.com/ -- is one of the largest opportunistic buyers of grocery items in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-381-1515 Fax: 213-465-4885 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Mendez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN MENDEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Ruben Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Grovehouse Hospitality, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-1646, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Aug. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Sept. 12, 2025. On May 26, 2026, Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Claims One and Two are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claims Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven, and dismisses those claims without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Mendez v. Grovehouse Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 26-1733, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RUBEN MENDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Defendants-Appellees GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al. are represented by: Brianne E. Murphy, Esq. 600 H. Street, NE, #321 Washington, DC 20002 - and - Nicole Lagadas, Esq. HELBRAUN LEVEY 40 Fulton Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10038 HARBOR FREIGHT: Bonetto Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Bonetto, Joshua Gabrielson, Amber Myking, and Samuel Wineinger, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS CORPORATE, LLC; and HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No. 26-2-18627-8 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Thurston County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02276. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: payment of wages less than entitled in violation of RCW 49.46.090; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; failure to provide meal periods in violation of WAC 296-126-092; failure to provide and pay sick leave in violation of WAC 296-128-620; failure to pay all wages due at separation in violation of RCW 49.48.010; and willful refusal to pay wages. The Complaint seeks damages for alleged RCW and WAC violations and attorney fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Freeburg, Esq. Jeffery DeGroot, Esq. Danielle Igbokwe, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4811 Email: David.Freeburg@us.dlapiper.com Jeffery.Degroot@us.dlapiper.com E-mail: Danielle.Igbokwe@us.dlapiper.com HUB GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton announces that a securities fraud lawsuit has been filed against Hub Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUBG) and certain of its executives. Investors who have lost money in their Hub Group investment should contact the firm to learn more about how they might recover those losses. For more details, visit https://blockleviton.com/cases/hubg. What is this all about? The complaint alleges that Hub Group, a North American transportation and logistics company, told investors during the class period that its financial reports were accurate and that its internal accounting controls were effective. According to the complaint, the Company had actually been recognizing certain transactions too early or incorrectly and had understated its purchased transportation costs and accounts payable, making its reported revenue, expenses, and operating income materially wrong. The truth began to emerge on February 5, 2026, when Hub Group announced it would restate its financial statements for the first three quarters of 2025 due to a roughly $77 million understatement, and again on May 12, 2026, when it disclosed that its 2023 and 2024 annual reports were also materially misstated and should no longer be relied upon. Following these announcements, Hub Group's stock price fell sharply, dropping about 18% in February 2026 and a further 13% in May 2026. Who is eligible? Anyone who purchased Hub Group, Inc. common stock between April 28, 2023, and May 11, 2026, and has seen their shares fall may be eligible, whether or not they have sold their investment. Investors should contact Block & Leviton to learn more. What should you do next? The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is August 28, 2026. A class has not yet been certified, and until a certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. If you've lost money on your investment, you should contact Block & Leviton to learn more via our case website, by email at shareholders@blockleviton.com, or by phone at (888) 256-2510. Whistleblower? If you have non-public information about Hub Group, Inc., you should consider assisting in our investigation or working with our attorneys to file a report with the Securities Exchange Commission under their whistleblower program. Whistleblowers who provide original information to the SEC may receive rewards of up to 30% of any successful recovery. For more information, contact Block & Leviton at whistleblowers@blockleviton.com or by phone at (888) 256-2510. Why should you contact Block & Leviton? Block & Leviton is widely regarded as one of the leading securities class action firms in the country. Our attorneys have recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors and are dedicated to obtaining significant recoveries on behalf of our clients through active litigation in the federal courts across the country. Many of the nation's top institutional investors hire us to represent their interests. You can learn more about us at our website, www.blockleviton.com, call (888) 256-2510 or email shareholders@blockleviton.com with any questions. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (888) 256-2510 Email: shareholders@blockleviton.com [GN] INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bless Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KYLLIA BLESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00608-RJS (D. Utah, July 1, 2026) contends that Instructure failed to protect information belonging to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. According to the complaint, Instructure failed to adopt reasonable security procedures and practices that would keep user information private, including information belonging to minors. One of the software products that Instructure offers to institutions is Canvas. Canvas is a platform used by tens of millions of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. These users include children in grades K-12, as well as college students. For many students, parents, teachers, and administrators, use of Canvas is required to enroll in courses, participate in classroom discussions, and manage learning. On information and belief, Canvas collects, obtains, and records information on its users, including names, social security numbers, emails, locations, video recordings, student ID numbers, and other personal information, along with data on student performance and records of student messages (Personally Identifiable Information). The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf on herself and the Nationwide Class alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Kyllia Bless is a student at Southern Utah University who was required to use Canvas by her university in order to submit assignments and school examinations, access lectures, communicate with professors, and complete other school-related tasks and assignments. Instructure is an educational technology company that sells educational software products, including learning management software, to educational institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan O. Hafen, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 101 South 200 East Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON, P.C. 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Mockert TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Utah --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sam Mockert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instructure Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02567 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on June 30, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00605-RJS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Instructure Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.instructure.com/ -- is an educational technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com INSULET CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Insulet Corporation (NASDAQ: PODD) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Insulet securities between May 21, 2025 and May 26, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/PODD. Insulet Case Details The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1. Insulet's manufacturing controls and procedures were defective; 2. the foregoing created a foreseeable heightened risk that one or more Insulet products would be found to be in violation of applicable safety regulations and/or pose a risk of injury; and 3. as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next for Insulet Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/PODD, or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Insulet you have until August 31, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Insulet Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Insulet Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: (917) 590-0911 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] INSULET CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Insulet Corporation ("Insulet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PODD) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 26-cv-13062, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Insulet securities between February 21, 2025 and May 26, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Insulet securities during the Class Period, you have until August 31, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Insulet develops, manufactures, and sells insulin delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes in the United States ("U.S.") and internationally. The Company offers, inter alia, its "Omnipod 5" automated insulin delivery ("AID") system, which includes a proprietary AID algorithm embedded in the pod that integrates with a third-party continuous glucose monitor to obtain glucose values through wireless Bluetooth communication; and its "Omnipod Dash", which features a Bluetooth enabled Pod that is controlled by a smartphone-like Personal Diabetes Manager. Insulet also formerly offered the Omnipod Insulin Management System, its predecessor to the Omnipod 5, prior to the Class Period, but had already begun to phase out the product by the start of the Class Period. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Insulet's manufacturing controls and procedures were defective; (ii) the foregoing created a foreseeable heightened risk that one or more Insulet products would be found to be in violation of applicable safety regulations and/or pose a risk of injury; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on March 12, 2026, when Insulet disclosed that it had "initiated a voluntary Medical Device Correction for specific lots of Omnipod® 5 Pods after identifying a manufacturing issue through its ongoing product monitoring." On this news, Insulet's stock price fell $16.23 per share, or 6.88%, to close at $219.84 per share on March 13, 2026. Then, on May 26, 2026, Insulet disclosed the "initation" of another "voluntary Medical Device Correction", this time "for specific lots of Omnipod® 5, Omnipod Dash®, and Omnipod® Insulin Management System (Omnipod Eros) Pods due to a manufacturing issue, identified through ongoing product monitoring, that could result in insulin under-delivery." On this news, Insulet's stock price fell $7.79 per share, or 5.07%, to close at $146.01 per share on May 27, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Cuervo Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAMIAN RIVAS, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC, a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21012 (Cal. Super., July 1, 2026) alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from November 4, 2024 through September 12, 2025. Throughout all relevant times, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees experienced computer malfunctions, login errors, software issues, or system crashes that required restarting the computer and repeating the entire boot-up process. During this time, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees remained under Defendants' control and were required to wait until the computer became operational before they could clock in. The time spent waiting for the computer to boot up was not accurately recorded or compensated. As a result, by the time Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees successfully logged into the employer's timekeeping system, several minutes -- often up to five minutes or more -- had already elapsed. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for this pre- shift work time, resulting in unpaid wages for all hours worked, the suit says. Inter-Con is a U.S.-based multinational security services company headquartered in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-010 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com INTUIT INC: Falco Sues Over Inadequate Account Security Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS FALCO, MARCUS MORGAN, KEE JAKE, HANSEY MOMPOINT, SANDRA BOYD, LASHANNA HAILEY, KITARA KILROY and MANUEL ALBERTO FIGUEROA NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTUIT INC. and CREDIT KARMA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-06451 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to maintain reasonable account security and customer protection measures for Credit Karma Money checking ("Spend") and savings ("Save") accounts in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation E. Intuit develops and operates financial software and technology services, including TurboTax, QuickBooks, and Credit Karma. According to the complaint, Credit Karma, a subsidiary of Intuit, offers Credit Karma Money accounts that promise members FDIC-insured deposits, no fees, and secure online access. The Defendants marketed Credit Karma Money accounts as secure, reliable, and suitable for everyday financial use, representing that they employ robust safeguards to protect user accounts and personal information. Contrary to these representations, however, the Defendants' account security systems are defective. The systems lacked adequate protections against unauthorized access and fraud, allowing bad actors to gain access to consumer accounts and initiate unauthorized transfers, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs and thousands of other consumers nationwide experienced unauthorized withdrawals from their Credit Karma Money accounts, were denied timely access to their funds, or both. These failures reflect systemic negligence: Defendants neither implemented sufficient fraud-prevention mechanisms nor maintained effective customer support channels to respond to victims of unauthorized activity, alleges the suit. Intuit Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER, GRAIFMAN, PERLMUTTER & CARBALLO P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Matthew Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: msmith@classlawdc.com JEFF & TONYS DSD: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeff & Tonys DSD, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rafael Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Jeff & Tonys DSD, LLC, Grikor Erdoglian, Case No. 26STCV19668 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jeff & Tony's -- https://jtdsd.com/ -- is a wholesale distributor of ice cream and frozen foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Navid Barahmand, Esq. BARAHMAND LAW GROUP 23801 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 2034 Calabasas, CA 91302-1558 Phone: 818-574-3355 Fax: 818-574-3757 Email: navid@barahmandlaw.com JET EXPRESS: Estrada Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- LAURA ESTRADA, and other similarly-situated individuals, v. JET EXPRESS SERVICES, LLC., and ALEXANDER E. SANQUINTIN, individually, Case No. 3:26-cv-01706 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other former employees similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after June 2023, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated. The Defendant is a courier and delivery services company. The Defendant provides package delivery and courier services in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail:alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com JP IP: Orcel Suit Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JP IP CO, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08046 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.jean-georgesrestaurant.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KIDS CO: May Face Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Kids Co. data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Kids Co. data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Kids Co. Security Incident: What Happened? Evergreen Children's Association, which does business as Kids Co., has reported a data breach that may have compromised the security of sensitive personal information. A report submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation on July 2, 2026 indicates that Social Security numbers were among the information compromised in the Kids Co. data breach. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the nature or scope of the breach was available. Kids Co. provides early learning, after-school, summer camp, and day camp programs out of multiple locations in the Seattle area. What You Can Do After the Kids Co. Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Kids Co. data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Kids Co. to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] KING JAMES: Hammond Balks at Unpaid Wages and Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE HAMMOND, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KING JAMES RG LLC d/b/a CHILLZ RESTAURANT AND BAR, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, JAMES STRICKLAND, an Individual, and MARLAND KING, an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03559-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 25, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover from Defendant minimum wage, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Hammond worked for the Defendants as a bartender and server from approximately August 2025 to December 24, 2025. The Defendants purported to pay Plaintiff and other servers and bartenders pursuant to the FLSA's tip credit provision, paying Plaintiff a direct cash wage of approximately $2.13 per hour and claiming the remainder of the minimum wage obligation would be satisfied by tips. Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff noticed ongoing inconsistencies in the amounts and timing of her tip payments, says the suit. The Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Defendants' management about failure to pay wages correctly and about the tip-out policies, as Plaintiff believed Defendants were violating federal law with respect to both. In response, the Defendants retaliated against her by constructively discharging her from her employment, says the Plaintiff. King James RG LLC d/b/a Chillz Restaurant and Bar is in the restaurant business with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (321) 594-7316 E-mail: jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com LAKE REGION: ClassAction.org Investigates Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Lake Region Healthcare data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Lake Region Healthcare data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Lake Region Healthcare Security Incident: What Happened? Lake Region Healthcare Corporation, operating multiple locations in Minnesota, has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. According to an online notice, Lake Region Healthcare first discovered unauthorized access on or about May 19, 2025 and subsequently launched an investigation aided by cybersecurity experts. The investigation, concluding on June 5, 2026, determined that names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, health insurance information, contact information, medical or treatment information, government-issued ID data, and financial information may have been involved, varying from person to person. Those potentially impacted by the Lake Region Healthcare data breach are being notified by mail. What You Can Do After the Lake Region Healthcare Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Lake Region Healthcare data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Lake Region Healthcare to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] LANCASTER REGIONAL: Chennault Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nurses ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHA CHENNAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP D/B/A CRESCENT MEDICAL CENTER LANCASTER, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02089-K (N.D. Tex., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Crescent as a Registered Nurse from approximately July 2019 through February 10, 2026, at Crescent's facility in Lancaster, Texas. Lancaster Regional Hospital, LP, doing business as Crescent Medical Center Lancaster, is a healthcare services provider based in Lancaster, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com - and - Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 999-6374 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com LANSING COMMUNITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Fritsch Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CORTNEY FRITSCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:26-cv-01979 (W.D. Mich., July 1, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Defendant, which Defendant reportedly suffered on or about February 12, 2025 (the Data Breach). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and individuals impacted by the Data Breach provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the education services Defendant provides. Reportedly, on February 18, 2025, the Defendant became aware that certain systems on its network environment were affected by a data breach, and subsequently launched an investigation into the matter. On or around June 5, 2026, Defendant began sending Notice of Data Breach letters to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them that their Private Information was exfiltrated in the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, alleges the suit. The Defendant is a community colleges in Michigan, serving more than 13,000 students each year, and offering associate degrees and certificate programs in addition to career and workforce development and personal enrichment options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily E. Hughes, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: eeh@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com LENDIO INC: Jackson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case TAYLOR JACKSON, JOSEPH FONTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENDIO, INC.; BROCK BLAKE; and all other related entities and individuals, Case No. 610642/2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 24, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03811 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, failure to pay all earned commissions, and failure to provide wage statements. Lendio, Inc. is a small business financing company, headquartered in Lehi, Utah. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alan F. Kaufman, Esq. Salvador P. Simao, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 330 Madison Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 413-9000 Email: alan.kaufman@nelsonmullins.com sal.simao@nelsonmullins.com LENOVO US: Hunter Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------- The case TYRONE HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.; LENOVO GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY (UNITED STATES) INC.; and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, Case No. 2026CH04916, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 24, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07403 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges causes of action against the Defendants for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, common law unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a software and hardware reseller, headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. Lenovo Global Technology (United States) Inc. is a computer and peripheral equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. Motorola Mobility, LLC is an electronics maker, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melissa A. Siebert, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474-4491 Email: msiebert@cozen.com - and - Max E. Kaplan, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-4682 Email: mkaplan@cozen.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Agrees to $13.4MM 401(k) Plan ERISA Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who participated in the Liberty Mutual 401(k) plan between April 10, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2025, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Liberty Mutual Group Inc. agreed to pay $13,400,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it and its 401(k) plan administrative committee violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The lawsuit claimed Liberty Mutual allowed the plan to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping and administrative services and retained imprudent investment options. Who are the class members? Class members include all participants and beneficiaries of the Liberty Mutual 401(k) plan from April 10, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2025, excluding the defendants. This includes: -- Anyone who had an account balance in the plan at any time during this period -- Both current and former employees who participated in the plan -- Beneficiaries and alternate payees entitled to a benefit under the plan The settlement divides class members into two main categories: -- Current participants: Individuals who had an account balance in the plan as of Dec. 31, 2025. These class members do not need to file a claim to receive payment. -- Former participants: Individuals who did not have an account balance in the plan as of Dec. 31, 2025. These class members must submit a claim form to receive payment. How much can class members get? The total settlement fund is $13,400,000. Th settlement administrator will deduct attorneys' fees and costs, administrative expenses, taxes, and service awards to class representatives from this amount before distributing it to eligible class members. The court-approved plan of allocation divides the fund into four portions: -- Sterling Mid-Cap Value Fund portion (35%): Allocated to those who invested in this fund between April 10, 2014, and March 1, 2018 -- Recordkeeping fee portion (27.5%): Distributed among all class members based on their quarter-ending account balances from April 10, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2025 -- Managed account portion (27.5%): Allocated to those who used the plan's managed account services during the class period -- Wells Fargo U.S. Government Money Market Fund portion (10%): Allocated to those who invested in this fund between April 10, 2014, and May 31, 2021 Each class member's share will depend on their account balances and investments in the specified funds and services during the class period. The minimum payment is $10. If a class member's calculated share is less than $10, the settlement administrator will increase their payment to $10. How to claim a settlement payment Current participants who had an account balance as of Dec. 31, 2025, do not need to take any action. The settlement administrator will automatically deposit their payment into their existing plan account. Former participants who had no balance as of Dec. 31, 2025, must submit a claim form to receive their payment. They can file a claim online or download the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Liberty Mutual ERISA Settlement, P.O. Box 2010, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2010 Required information To file an online claim, class members must enter the claim number and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Current participants: Payment credited to their plan account -- Former participants: Payment by check mailed to their address or sent as a rollover to a qualified retirement account $13.4 million settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $13,400,000 will cover: -- Administrative expenses: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $4,466,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $430,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $20,000 each for six representatives (maximum $120,000) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Claim form deadline: Aug. 22, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Sept. 2, 2026 When is the Liberty Mutual 401(k) plan ERISA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments within 150 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The lawsuit alleged Liberty Mutual Group Inc. and the 401(k) plan administrative committee violated ERISA by allowing the plan to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping and administrative services and retaining imprudent investment options. Liberty Mutual denied all allegations and any liability but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $10 and up (varies by participant) Deadline: August 22, 2026 [GN] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Ward Suit to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Adam Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Jan. 23, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Brian E. Murphy granted on June 12, 2026. Considering the Rule 23(b)(3) factors, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that a class action is a superior method for resolving the instant controversy. The appellate case is styled as Adam Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 26-8034, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ADAM WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC 30 East Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Ste. #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 Email: Max.Morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Email: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com Defendant-Petitioner LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Patrick Tracey, Esq. Jesse I. Bogacz, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 912-0905 Email: Patrick.Tracey@saul.com Jesse.Bogacz@saul.com - and - James A. Morsch, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 North Clark, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 876-7866 Email: Jim.Morsch@saul.com LINEAGE INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lineage, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ruben Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lineage, Inc. d/b/a LINEAGE Logistics LLC, Lineage Logistics Holdings LLC, Bay Grove Capital LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 26STCV19775 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Public Nuisance." Lineage -- https://www.onelineage.com/ -- is the global leader of the temperature-controlled logistics industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0271 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Hearing in Cuevas Continued to Sept. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuevas v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-03166 (N.D. Cal., Filed June 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting stipulation as follows: (1) the June 30, 2026 hearing on the motion for class certification is continued to September 22, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., via Zoom; and (2) by August 17, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status update regarding their mediation. Signed by Judge Rita F. Lin on June 26, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Little Caesar operates as a chain of restaurants.[CC] LOOKOUT WAFFLES: Cann Sues to Recover Minimum Wage -------------------------------------------------- David Cann, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LOOKOUT WAFFLES, LLC d/b/a WAFFLE HOUSE, Domestic Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:26-cv-00174-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 30, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from Defendant minimum wage, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant required Plaintiff and other tipped employees had to share their tips with "back of house" employees such as and cooks. The Defendant was aware it was illegal for servers to share tips with back of house employees. Defendants' failure and/or refusal to properly compensate Plaintiff and the class members at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were willful. The Defendants' retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff and the class members for complaining about the Defendants' pay practices was willful, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server from approximately November 2024 through February 2025. The Defendant owned and operated a restaurant located in Cartersville, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (321) 594-7316 Email: jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com LOS ANGELES ARBORETUM: Ascencio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles Arboretum Foundation, Inc. The case is styled as Ismael Ascencio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Los Angeles Arboretum Foundation, Inc., Case No. 26STCV20990 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Los Angeles Arboretum Foundation, Inc. -- https://arboretum.org/ -- is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that co-manages the 127-acre Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden in Arcadia, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com LUDI BRUCA INC: Qi Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ludi Bruca Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shushan Qi, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ludi Bruca Inc. d/b/a Cafe Evergreen; Frank Moy; Monique Li Soon a/k/a Li Chuan M. Soon; Case No. 653779/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (FLSA and NYLL Class)." LUDI BRUCA INC. doing business as Cafe Evergreen -- https://www.cafeevergreennewyork.com/ -- is a Cantonese joint whose dim sum provides a Chinatown-style dining experience on the Upper East Side.[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 MAGICAL INVESTMENT: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO v. MAGICAL INVESTMENT LLC and MR CACHAPA HIALEAH LLC D/B/A MR CACHAPA HIALEAH, Case No. 1:26-cv-24544 (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2026) is class action suit for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The supermarket at this address falls within the commercial property/strip mall that is the subject of the ADA Action. In spite of the abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, the Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the business therein, the suit contends. The Plaintiff is an individual over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. The Defendant owned and operated a restaurant at 2085 W 76th Street, Hialeah, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com MASTER-CARE INC: Price Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Master-Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jan Price, and all others similarly situated v. MASTER-CARE, INC., a corporation, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV015340 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Master Care -- https://www.mastercareplan.com/ -- is an Enhanced Care Management and Community Support provider in multiple California counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Hickson Haber, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: benjamin@wilshirelawfirm.com MATCH.COM L.L.C.: Caetano Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practice ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Caetano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Match.Com, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-05554 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026), is brought arises from Match's deceptive trade practice in which it advertises "Highlights" (i.e., other members who, according to Match, are "most compatible" with a user) to entice users to subscribe to Match's platform. Users can only connect to individuals featured on Highlights through utilizing an additional paid add-on – "Super Likes." Only once consumers have paid for their Match subscription do they discover that they must pay an additional amount to obtain and send Super Likes to these Highlights. The Plaintiff believes that the advertisements regarding Highlights directly made to consumers (i.e., specific Highlights sent to consumers via email) could be comprised of fake accounts in order to entice these consumers into purchasing Super Likes. The Plaintiff alleges a violation of the New York General Business Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff paid for a Match subscription between June 2023 and the present. Match offers its users a free account and four subscription tiers: bronze, silver, platinum, and diamond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Christopher M. Brain, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com cbrain@gme-law.com MAVA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: Black Files Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mava Healthcare System, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mava Healthcare System, LLC d/b/a Mava Behavioral Health, Case No. 26-06-10767 (Tex. Ct., Montgomery Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Injury or Damage." Mava Healthcare System LLC -- https://mavamedical.com/ -- is a leading healthcare provider dedicated to delivering high-quality medical services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Barcenas Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenya Barcenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE STAFFING SERVICES, INC.; MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV19402 (Cal. Sper. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 22, 2026), is brought alleging that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay wages timely during employment; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants to recover, among other things, unpaid wages, un reimbursed business expenses, benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and other California residents as non-exempt employees throughout California. The Defendants provide services or goods throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali S. Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 Email: acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com MEN'S HEALTH: De Haro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Aguirre De Haro, an individual, on behalf of herself, other aggrieved employees, and the State of California v. MEN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20674 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and the California Labor Code ("Labor Code") for unpaid minimum, regular, and overtime wages. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the PAGA Period, Defendants had a consistent policy of violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages (including sick pay, minimum, regular, and overtime wages), failing to provide meal, rest, and recovery periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failing to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to maintain accurate records of hours worked, and failing to reimburse business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee. MEN'S HEALTH FOUNDATION was and is a California corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Alami, Esq. ALAMI LAW GROUP APC 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 866-4414 Email: david@alamilawgroup.com MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Adams Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Financial Services Inc. The case is styled as Pearl Adams, individually and behalf of all other similarly situated v. Meridian Financial Services Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-02580-DCC (D.S.C., June 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meridian Financial Services, Inc. -- https://www.merid.com/ -- specializes in third-party collections for the shared ownership industry, utilizing advanced technologies and proven techniques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC 8095 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (602) 807-1527 Email: dmccraw@consumerjustice.com MERRICK BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Harvey Pitts filed a class action lawsuit against Merrick Bank and Halsted Financial Services LLC. Why: Pitts claims the companies engaged in unlawful debt collection by contacting him directly despite knowing he was represented by an attorney. Where: The Merrick Bank class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. How to get help: If you've experienced debt collection calls and harassment, you may be eligible to join a debt collection lawsuit investigation. A new class action lawsuit alleges Merrick Bank and its debt collection partner, Halsted Financial Services, violated federal and state law by contacting a consumer directly after he had obtained legal representation. Plaintiff Harvey Pitts filed the complaint on May 27, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) -- both of which bar debt collectors from contacting a represented consumer directly. In May 2025, Pitts notified Bank of Missouri, the original creditor on an unsecured line of credit, that he was represented by an attorney and that all future communications should go to his counsel. Pitts claims Bank of Missouri disclosed to Merrick Bank during the sale that he had legal representation, disputed the debt and had directed all contact to his attorney. The Merrick Bank class action lawsuit further alleges the sale price itself was influenced by Pitts' represented status, therefore Merrick Bank had full knowledge from the moment it acquired the debt, yet it still hired Halsted Financial to collect directly from him. Pitts wants to represent a class of consumers contacted directly by either company in connection with a consumer debt after the companies knew they were represented by an attorney. Merrick Bank, Halsted Financial allegedly failed to disclose debt was disputed The Merrick Bank class action lawsuit claims the unlawful debt collection did not stop at the unauthorized contact, alleging that Halsted Financial sent Pitts a collection letter dated Dec. 27, 2025, in an attempt to collect the debt. Pitts also argues that the collection letter failed to disclose that the debt was disputed, a separate violation of both the FDCPA and the FCCPA. Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are barred from communicating credit information they know to be false, including "the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed," the class action lawsuit says. Pitts alleges Merrick Bank informed Halsted Financial that he disputed the debt before placing the account for collection, but Halsted Financial later sent a collection letter that failed to disclose the debt was disputed. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory and actual damages, and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Meanwhile, Synchrony Bank recently faced a class action lawsuit alleging it used artificial or prerecorded voice messages to unlawfully collect an alleged debt. What do you think of the claims made against Merrick Bank and Halsted Financial? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Talal Rashid of Patti Zabaleta Law Group. The Merrick Bank class action lawsuit is Pitts v. Merrick Bank, et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00138, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. [GN] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Skyrocketing DRAM Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Neha Gupta, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that Micron Technology Inc. (NASDAQ:MU) is one of the top AI Stocks to buy according to billionaire Philippe Laffont. On June 29, Micron Technology Inc. (NASDAQ:MU) was hit with a class action lawsuit over claims that it is restricting DRAM supply to inflate prices. The private class-action lawsuit in the US also names Samsung and SK Hynix for allegedly contributing to memory prices reaching historical highs amid ongoing shortages, as demand continues to outpace supply. In the lawsuit, the fillers are demanding compensation from the three companies for allegedly gouging prices by creating artificial shortages of memory. here is a global RAM shortage driven by AI data center demand that's forcing the likes of Micron to raise prices. Apple has already had to raise device prices by as much as $200 due to the shortages. Micron has also had to lock 16 companies into five-year contracts, as building new fabs takes 5+ years and costs upward of $10 billion. Micron Technology Inc. (NASDAQ:MU) manufactures the foundational memory and data storage hardware required to power artificial intelligence. Because AI models ingest and process colossal amounts of information, high-performance computing heavily relies on Micron's specialized chips to prevent processing bottlenecks. While we acknowledge the potential of MU as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Espinoza Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as GUILLERMO A. ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV493918, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-06395 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts eight causes of action against the Defendant, each of which is a class-wide cause of action stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the complaint alleges causes of action under the California Labor Code for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to permit rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; as well as (8) violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Redmond, Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Danielle H. Moore, Esq. Bret Martin, Esq. Jesse D. Borja, Esq. Nicholas J. Perez, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 E-mail: dmoore@fisherphillips.com bmartin@fisherphillips.com jdborja@fisherphillips.com njperez@fisherphillips.com MISSISSIPPI: Violates Civil Rights of Parents & Youth, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, ANDRE DE GRUY, and JENNIFER MORGAN, BRENDA LOCKE, and A. ARMAN MIRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KATHARINE SURKIN, DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF COURTS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00458-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the procedural due process rights of parents and children in Youth Court and the substantive due process rights of Youth Court attorneys. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the procedural due process rights of parents and children in Youth Court by denying them and their lawyers access to the Youth Court case records. The Plaintiffs are suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of the Defendant's violations of their rights. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent further deprivation of their right to occupational liberty, suit says. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Graham P. Carner, Esq. Spencer Cash, Esq. CARNER & ROSEMON, PLLC 401 East Capitol Street, Suite 218 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 427-8999 Facsimile: (769) 233-8941 Email: graham@carnerrosemon.com spencer@carnerrosemon.com - and - Elizabeth Rossi, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (410) 935-3758 Facsimile: (202) 410-8938 Email: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org - and - Jaqueline Aranda Osorno, Esq. Ana Builes, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE 1620 L. Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC Email: jaosorno@publicjustice.net abuiles@publicjustice.net MONTREAL, QC: Faces Class Lawsuit Following Flash Floods -------------------------------------------------------- Matt Grillo, writing for CTV News, reports that two applications for class action lawsuits have been filed against the city of Dollard-des-Ormeaux and the borough of Pierrefonds-Roxboro following the flash floods that impacted Montreal's West Island two weeks ago. The applications allege the municipalities failed to take proper action to address the risk of flooding, including installing sponge parks or catch basins. "We've come to the conclusion that we believe the city did not act soon enough to put in measures that would have prevented this, and so we've called it negligence and in fact gross negligence in our class action lawsuit," said lawyer Jeff Orenstein. More than just financial compensation Orenstein says the legal process could take years, as the class actions must first be authorized. He said the goal extends beyond financial compensation. "You can see coming off of Westpark (Street), off of Anselme Lavigne (Avenue), just the amount of side streets that are affected by the flood, the amount of debris and garbage and construction material on everyone's lawn right now," said Robert Wolofsky, a DDO resident involved in the class action request. "This is something that we do not want to have reoccur over and over and over again." Both the borough of Pierrefonds-Roxboro and the city of DDO declined to comment on the proposed class actions. The mayor of DDO, Alex Bottausci, told CTV News that the city will host a public meeting on flood mitigation measures on Aug. 6. Second time in less than two years Crews are still picking up debris in the regions, and the basements of many homes are gutted. For some residents, it's the second time in less than two years that their homes have been flooded. "On the day of the flood, I was painting my one-room basement, and I have a video of me saying, ' Well, I hope it doesn't flood again,'" said Lisa Freeman, a DDO resident. "Forty minutes later, water starts coming in through my toilet and floor drain." Residents living on Lake Street in DDO are angry and say it's been a stressful two weeks. "We pay property taxes; we pay steep property taxes even when people are unemployed, people are still paying property taxes," Freeman said. [GN] MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Rojas Suit Moved from State Court to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ROJAS and MARISSA BARRIGA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2026-CH-05072 (N.D. Ill., Filed May 27, 2026) was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 26, 2026. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07540 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are citizens of California residing in Merced, California. They allege that Motorola operates an automatic license plate reader (ALPR) system that captured their license plate numbers, GPS coordinates, and other personal information each time they drove near cameras located at the UC Merced Entrance in Merced, California, without notice or consent. The Plaintiffs allege that Motorola's ALPR system: (1) failed to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access and disclosure, including by permitting end-users to share ALPR data with federal and non-California agencies in violation of California law; (2) failed to implement a proper usage and privacy policy; and (3) failed to post its usage and privacy policy conspicuously on its website. The Plaintiffs' proposed class includes "All individuals in the United States whose license plate number or other identifying information was captured by Defendant using Defendant’s California ALPR Cameras during the class period." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek: (1) class certification; (2) actual damages not less than liquidated damages of $2,500 per class member; (3) punitive damages; (4) injunctive relief; (5) pre- and post-judgment interest; and (6) attorneys' fees and litigation costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Vail, Esq. David C. Layden, Esq. Andrianna Kastanek, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: AVail@jenner.com DLayden@jenner.com AKastanek@jenner.com MVP VIP HOLDCO: Atchley Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MVP VIP Holdco, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gary Atchley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MVP VIP Holdco, LLC doing business as: Heart of America Eye Care, Heart of America Eye Care, P.A., Case No. 2:26-cv-02379-HLT-BGS (D. Kan., June 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. MVP VIP Holdco, LLC doing business as Heart of America Eye Care -- https://heartofamericaeyecare.com/ -- offer comprehensive eye care to adults and children alike s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com NABU ENERGY LLC: Tabora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nabu Energy LLC. The case is styled as Alex Tabora, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Nabu Energy LLC, Case No. 26CV195789 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Nabu Energy -- https://nabuenergy.com/ -- specializes in solar panel and battery installation in Bay Area California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com NAVIENT CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Navient data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Navient data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Navient Security Incident: What Happened? Education financing and loan servicing company Navient Corporation has disclosed a third-party data breach in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 2, 2026. According to the SEC filing, on June 8, Navient was alerted to a ransomware attack affecting some systems of a law firm that provides services to Navient. The company was informed that some of its data, including borrower names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers, had been compromised in the third-party Navient data breach. Navient, whose own systems were not compromised in the breach, plans to notify affected individuals. What You Can Do After the Navient Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Navient data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Navient to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] NEILL AIRCRAFT CO: Quintero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neill Aircraft Co. The case is styled as Jorge Quintero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Neill Aircraft Co., Case No. 26STCV19942 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Neill Aircraft Company (NAC) -- http://www.neillaircraft.com/-- is a family owned aerospace company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Espinoza Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ANAYA ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEOVIA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVRI2602114, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03562 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint asserts: 1) failure to pay all lawful wages including overtime wages; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to reimburse employee expenses; (5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages at termination of employment; (7) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law; and, (9) Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Neovia Logistics Distribution, LP is an inbound logistics, service parts logistics, and finished goods distribution company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tracie Childs, Esq. Keenan P. O'Connor, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: keenan.oconnor@ogletree.com NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Neuman Suit Removed from State Court to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA NEUMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A LIME; and VEORIDE, INC. D/B/A VEO, Case No. 718609/2026. (Filed June 22, 2026) was removed from the from the Queens County Supreme Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 1, 2026. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03964-RER-RML to the proceeding. Neutron Holdings is an American transportation company specializing in shared micromobility solutions, primarily renting out electric scooters and electric bicycles in 230 cities across 30 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan E. Neuman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN E. NEUMAN, ESQ. 176-25 Union Turnpike, Suite 2300 Fresh Meadows, NY 11366 The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3140 Facsimile: (212) 248-3141 E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com NEXT LEVEL: Franklin Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming -------------------------------------------------------- KENEDY FRANKLIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXT LEVEL VALET LLC, ANDIES SHEPHERD, AND KYLE HUNTER BURKEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01707 (W.D. Tex., June 25, 2026) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees the required federal minimum wage for each hour worked and misappropriated tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Franklin is an individual residing in Travis County, Texas, and has worked as a valet for Defendants' business since September 15, 2022. Throughout the employment of Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated FLSA by retaining the tips earned by the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, and by failing to compensate Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, at a rate not less than the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour for each hour worked in a workweek, relates the complaint. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, are entitled to actual and compensatory damages, including the amount of unlawfully retained tips and minimum wages which was not paid that should have been paid, says the suit. Next Level Valet LLC is a limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and operates a valet service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS SCALISE BEELER AND PILLISCHER LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com NISSAN NORTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kerner Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK KERNER and RONALD BALICKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00903 (M.D. Tenn., July 1, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. The Defendant employs over 21,000 individuals in its United States operations. According to the Defendant, it uses Oracle PeopleSoft software to manage employee information, including payroll, tax administration, and other personnel records. Thus, the Defendant relied on Oracle to store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) -- about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals hacked Oracle in a data breach (the Data Breach). The suit says that is a "hub-and-spoke" data breach that involves a hub -- a company that centralizes data (here Oracle) -- who stores data for its numerous customers -- the spokes (here Defendant). In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its employees' data -- thereby allowing cybercriminals to steal its current and former employees' PII. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant and Data Breach victims, having received an email notification from Defendant advising them that their PII was involved in the Data Breach. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The Defendant is the North American subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation, which is a global car manufacturer that sells a full line of vehicles under the Nissan and INFINITI brands.5 On information and belief, Defendant operates 1049 dealerships in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com NORCO INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Easa Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORCO, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Tina Easa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Norco, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02028-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington, is brought against the Defendants for violations of Washington wage and hour laws and regulations. On Jan. 9, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied on June 2, 2026. The Defendants have failed to convince the Court that the claims here are "indirectly related" to the Plaintiff's employment with Aston Carter, or that equitable estoppel should apply. Accordingly, having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and orders that the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is denied. The appellate case is styled as Easa v. Norco, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-4090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 1, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 5, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TINA EASA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 - and - Raymond A. Wendell, Esq. DARDARIAN HO KAN & LEE 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Defendants-Appellants NORCO, INC., et al. are represented by: Patrick Michael Madden, Esq. Ai-Li Chiong-Martinson, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 NOVA DENTAL: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NOVA DENTAL ASSOCIATES, PC Case No. 2:26-cv-08038 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.novadentalnj.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NUVA SMILE: Orcel Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NUVA SMILE, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08039 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.nuvasmile.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 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. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OKLAHOMA: Appeals Amended Final Order in Feltz Civil Rights Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FELTZ, et al. are taking an appeal from an amended final order granting declaratory and injunctive relief in the lawsuit entitled Richard Feltz, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vic Regalado, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-00298-SPF-JFJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On June 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent injunction, which Judge Stephen P. Friot granted on Jan. 12, 2026. The Court entered a final order granting declaratory and injunctive relief, dismissing/terminating case. On Feb. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter order/judgment, which Judge Friot granted in part and denied in part on May 12, 2026. The Court entered an amended final order granting declaratory and injunctive relief. The appellate case is styled as Feltz, et al. v. Regalado, et al., Case No. 26-5089, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD FELTZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Allison M. Holt-Ryan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 - and - Hayley Horowitz, Esq. Phoebe Anne Kasdin, Esq. Kristina Michelle Saleh, Esq. STILL SHE RISES 608 East 46th Street North Tulsa, OK 74126 Telephone: (914) 837-5535 (918) 392-0867 - and - Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 - and - Alexander Karakatsanis, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20009 Defendants-Appellees VIC REGALADO, Tulsa County Sheriff, in his official capacity, et al. are represented by: Erin Morgan Moore, Esq. Devan Pederson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma 313 Northeast 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 ORACLE CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beatty Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BEATTY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ORACLE CORPORATION and NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01791 (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and that were impacted in a cyber incident which culminated in a security alert issued by Defendant Oracle on or about June 10, 2026. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Accordingly, between approximately May 27, 2026, and June 9, 2026, known ransomware group "ShinyHunters" infiltrated Defendant Oracle's Peoplesoft product, which is and was utilized by Defendant Nissan, and proceeded to locate and exfiltrate troves of data. According to Defendant Nissan, the information compromised includes contact and banking information, Social Security Number / Social Insurance Number / National Identification Number, financial and tax data, and dependent / beneficiary information. Oracle is a multinational corporation specializing in technology and cloud-bases services for numerous industries, including educational institutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Fosdyck Files Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oracle Corporation. The case is styled as Zac Fosdyck, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oracle Corporation, Illinois Central College, Case No. 1:26-cv-01774-ADA-SH (W.D. Tex., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Oracle Corporation -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Fax: (713) 659-2204 Email: Mark.Lanier@LanierLawFirm.com PACIFIC HEALTH SERVICES: Hill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Health Services, Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Hill, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Pacific Health Services, Inc., Case No. 26STCV20713 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pacific Health Services, Inc. is a certified home health care agency that provides skilled nursing, therapy, and medical social services to patients in their homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonelawpc.com PARKWEST BICYCLE CASINO: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parkwest Bicycle Casino LLC. The case is styled as Nefris J. Castro, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Parkwest Bicycle Casino LLC, Case No. 26STCV20681 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Parkwest Bicycle Casino (formerly The Bicycle Hotel & Casino) -- https://www.thebike.com/ -- is a poker cardroom in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PEABODY ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU) faces a securities class action lawsuit related to surprise disclosures the company made to investors on March 30 and May 5, 2026 about problems with its flagship metallurgical coal asset ("Centurion"). The lawsuit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Peabody common stock between October 14, 2024 and May 4, 2026. Between March 27 (the trading day before the first cryptic disclosure) and the May 5, 2026 fuller disclosure, investors saw the price of Peabody shares crumble $14.50 (-36%). Accordingly, the severe market reactions upon the company's revelations support national shareholder rights firm Hagens Berman's investigation into legal claims that Peabody and its co-defendants violated the federal securities laws. The firm encourages Peabody investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: Oct. 14, 2024 - May 4, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 24, 2026 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/btu Contact the Firm Now: BTU@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Peabody Energy Corporation (BTU) Securities Class Action: Peabody characterizes itself as a leading producer of metallurgical and thermal coal and has promoted Centurion, its underground longwall metallurgical coal mine in Queensland, Australia. According to the company, the mine commenced full-scale production in February 2026. The litigation is focused on the propriety of Peabody's statements about Centurion's operational status and production capabilities. For example, Peabody's management informed investors on February 5, 2026 that "the team was installing the very last shield and putting the finishing touches on the Centurion Mine[,]" and "our team is charged up and has started mining some of the best metallurgical coal in the world." The company and its management also assured investors that Centurion is "going to ramp up probably about 700,000 tons in Q1, about 1 million to 1.1 million tons in Q2 and Q3, and then it'll fall back down in Q4 as we have a longwall move." In response, the market rewarded these statements by sending the price of Peabody shares up about 7.8% the next day. Just a few weeks later, on March 30, 2026, Peabody filed a current report with the SEC and abruptly disclosed that Centurion "is expected deliver approximately 250,000 tons in the first quarter[.]" In other words, the company slashed Centurion production by about 64%. The news sent the price of Peabody shares down almost 10%. Then, on May 5, 2026, Peabody reported its Q1 2026 financial results. Of particular concern pertaining to Centurion, management revealed the truth about why it slashed the mine's Q1 production assurance. Despite telling investors in February that it was mining Centurion and would produce 700,000 tons in Q1, a new narrative emerged -- "as part of our commissioning in February, we encountered temporary mechanical and electrical issues" -- and "[a]s a result, our full year sales outlook for Centurion is now 2.5 million tons compared to our original expectation of 3.5 million tons." This full year 28% reduction helped send the price of Peabody shares down nearly 6%. "We're focused on whether Peabody and its management were sufficiently transparent about Centurion's operational capabilities during the Class Period and, if not, whether they violated federal securities laws," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the firm's investigation. If you invested in Peabody Energy and have substantial losses, or have knowledge that will assist the firm's investigation, submit your losses now. If you'd like more information and answers to other frequently asked questions about the Peabody case and the firm's investigation, read more. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Peabody Energy should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email BTU@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] PEARCE SERVICES: Fails to Properly Manage Facility, Doe Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, an individual, and JANE DOE 2, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEARCE SERVICES, LLC, CBRE GROUP, INC., LOS PALOS STREET OPERATING, LLC, ALTUS POWER, INC., LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, LINEAGE, INC., CHILL BUILD LOS ANGELES I, LLC, and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV20059 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence; negligence per se; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; private nuisance; public nuisance; trespass; negligent infliction of emotional distress; medical monitoring; strict products liability; violation of unfair competition law; premises liability; and loss of consortium. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to safely store and manage the materials at a cold-storage warehouse located in the 1400 block of South Los Palos Street in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles, California (the "Facility"), which led to a catastrophic industrial fire that ignited on the Facility's roof, and the days-long release of toxic smoke, ash, and combustion byproducts that the fire sent across Boyle Heights and the greater Los Angeles region. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class were exposed to toxic smoke and particulate matter, were confined to or driven from their homes, and suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of their homes, physical injury, and severe emotional distress. The suit seeks to recover the damages caused by the Defendants' misconduct and to compel them to operate, maintain, and service the Facility and its systems safely, suit says. Pearce Services, LLC is a commercial infrastructure services provider doing business in California. CBRE Group, Inc. is a commercial real estate services and investment firm, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Los Palos Street Operating, LLC is a subsidiary of Altus Power, Inc., doing business in California. Altus Power, Inc. is a renewable energy company, doing business in California. Lineage Logistics, LLC is a logistics company, doing business in California. Lineage, Inc. is the parent company of Lineage Logistics, LLC, doing business in California. Chill Build Los Angeles I, LLC is a property owner and operator based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan P. LaCour, Esq. Lisa Noveck, Esq. Amanda M. Thompson, Esq. Ben Twisk, Esq. WIN INJURY & ACCIDENT TRIAL LAWYERS 1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (310) 853-3461 Facsimile: (949) 743-5442 Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com lisan@pierrelacour.com amandat@pierrelacour.com bent@pierrelacour.com PENNSYLVANIA: Grohol Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- LORI GROHOL is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Lori Grohol, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Courts Administrative Office, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-01437, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On June 2, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which Judge Karoline Mehalchick denied on same day. On June 3, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the June 2 Order and motions for sanctions against Defendant Middle District Court for violating the Constitution with statistically significant differences in the application of the Younger doctrine and request to the ODC to investigate those differences and also against the judge or judicial law clerk who demonstrated total incompetence with regard to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and for the ODC to pursue an emergency temporary suspension of law license, if they have one, against them. On June 9, 2026, Judge Mehalchick entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and her motion for reconsideration and motions for sanctions are denied. The appellate case is styled as Lori Grohol v. Pennsylvania Courts Administrative Office, et al., Case No. 26-2595, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LORI GROHOL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Paige Martineau, Esq. 647 E. Third Street Williamsport, PA 17701 Telephone: (570) 392-3025 Defendants-Appellees PENNSYLVANIA COURTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, et al. are represented by: Carlo D. Marchioli, Esq. OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse 1501 N 6th Street, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 202 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Telephone: (717) 221-4482 PHILIP DIGENNARO: Faces Federal Charges Over %1.3MM Fraud Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Sharp, writing for WXXI News, reports that a Greece man is facing federal charges for allegedly submitting thousands of false claims for payouts from class action lawsuit settlements. Philip DiGennaro, 38, is accused of taking in $1.3 million over four years from 107 different settlements. Court records state that DiGennaro admitted to the fraud when the FBI searched his home, telling agents he came up with the idea after being unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and losing money in cryptocurrency. Those loses, he has claimed in separate lawsuits, were the result of theft. DiGennaro is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering. The charges carry a maximum of 20 years in prison. The U.S. Attorney's Office announced his arrest Tuesday, July 7, though court records show he was arrested last month and granted a conditional release. Class action lawsuits are filed by one or more people on behalf of a larger group alleged to have suffered similar harm from the same defendant or defendants. Such cases often are resolved with the defendant making a lump-sum settlement payment to a third-party claim administrator. People affected can then apply for payment under penalty of perjury, often requiring they submit proof. Large class action lawsuits can involve thousands of claimants. DiGennaro is accused of submitting false applications or claims under fictitious names in a range of settlements from Vimeo to Jeep and EpiPen to Porsche. In the case of the Jeep settlement, claimants had to submit a VIN number and other details. DiGennaro allegedly identified settlements on websites that highlight potential class action payouts that visitors can claim. He then used a name generator on his computer, obtained fake IDs in those names from the dark web, and sent the information to a third party in Colombia who he paid $600 a month to file the false claims using a proxy, according to court records. Investigators claim he told agents he would attach the fake name to any valid address, then set up mail forwarding to his personal address. Law enforcement continues to investigate whether any of the names belong to real people or are all fictitious, records show. DiGennaro allegedly used over 480 bank accounts at eight different financial institutions but consolidated much of the settlement payouts in CD or other high-yield savings accounts that were seized by federal authorities. The search of his home "found voluminous records of class action lawsuit filings, photoshopped documents with fake names, and a folder labeled 'ready for claims' with subfolders for various class action lawsuits,'" court records show. Many of the false claims ended in denials, he allegedly told agents. DiGennero sued Binance crypto exchange last October, claiming the platform ordered U.S. users to withdraw all assets in 2021 or risk permanent loss. He was holding 50 Ethereum tokens, the lawsuit states, which he said could not be transferred out of the Binance system. His lawsuit alleges that Binance then "wrongfully exercised control" over the tokens that today are worth more than $200,000. The lawsuit, filed Oct. 12, also named Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who President Donald Trump pardoned 10 days later. Zhao had pleaded guilty to money laundering after being accused of turning a blind eye to criminal activity on the platform. A separate lawsuit that DiGennero filed in June claimed he discovered in November 2021 that his crypto assets were being transferred without his authorization to unknown accounts. He stated that he filed complaints with the FBI and Greece Police Department. That lawsuit listed additional losses and placed his total damages at $750,000. [GN] PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Court OKs $162-Mil. Wage-and-Hour Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liza Berger, writing for McKnights Home Care, reports that a total of 200,000 personal assistants in New York's beleaguered Consumer-Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) scored a major victory last week after a federal judge approved a proposed $162 million wage-and-hour class action settlement in the case involving Public Partnerships LLC (PPL), the controversial fiscal intermediary installed to oversee the program in 2025. Under the terms of the settlement -- believed to be the largest wage-and-hour class action settlement in New York to date and one of the largest nationally -- each personal assistant will receive an average of $680 -- more than a full week's pay. Some 50,000 people will receive between $1,000 and $1,800 from the settlement. Also as part of the agreement, PPL agreed to end a health plan that failed to provide adequate coverage and was unnecessarily costly for workers, attorneys Michael Diller, of The Legal Aid Society, and Hugh Baran, of Katz Banks Kumin LLP, who represented the plaintiffs, told McKnight's Home Care Daily Pulse on Wednesday, July 1. "We're just very proud of the overall results and, most importantly, just thrilled that personal assistants who provide such important work caring for some of the most vulnerable disabled and elderly New Yorkers across our state are going to be receiving a really significant benefit from the settlement once it's approved," Baran said. In the case, Calderon v. Public Partnerships, LLC, the plaintiffs alleged that personal workers were not being paid on time when PPL began overseeing the program in 2025. "One of our plaintiffs who helped us bring the case, Philip Calderon, for example, he didn't receive any paycheck until around five weeks into the transition class," Diller said. Lawyers also brought claims under the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, which requires that home care workers receive both slightly higher cash minimum wage and a supplemental compensation component, which can be paid in either cash or benefits. PPL chose to fulfill the benefit supplement with a health plan. "We alleged first that that plan provided little or no value to the personal assistants because it only covered the most basic of preventive healthcare and didn't provide any coverage for things like illness or injury or hospitalization," Diller said. "And then we also alleged that PPL was essentially overcharging personal assistants for that plan because it was allocating around 40 cents per hour compensation to that plan, which was a self-funded plan and we alleged cost PPL much less to actually provide." The class represented by the suit includes downstate personal assistants in New York City, and Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties -- where the Wage Parity Law applies. A separate class-action suit is pending in other areas of the state. PPL has been under fire since the state of New York chose it to replace hundreds of fiscal intermediaries overseeing the program. The federal government recently filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging that its process for choosing PPL was corrupt. Under CDPAP, a Medicaid program, older adults and people with disabilities can choose their own caregivers to administer care in their homes. [GN] PVH CORP: Hashimi Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PVH Corp., et al. The case is styled as Qasem Hashimi, Henry De La Paz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PVH Corp., PVH Retail Stores, LLC, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-03811-AJB-GC (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. PVH Corp. -- https://www.pvh.com/ -- is one of the world's largest global apparel companies, headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Henry Ames, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. Scott Gregory Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: ethan@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com RAMON HEALTHCARE: Fowler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramon Healthcare Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Latrice Fowler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ramon Healthcare Associates, Inc., Mission Care Center, LLC, Ramon Healthcare Associates, LLC Case No. 26STCV19938 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ramon Healthcare Associates LLC is a Medicare-certified, skilled nursing and healthcare organization operating out of Rosemead, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com RAMY BROOK LLC: Jenkins Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramy Brook, LLC. The case is styled as Angel Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ramy Brook, LLC, Case No. 158159/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 30, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Disability). Ramy Brook -- https://www.ramybrook.com/ -- is a leading womenswear brand renowned for its sophisticated yet easy-to-wear pieces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 1 World Trade Center, 85th Fl New York, NY 10007 Phone: 866-569-1619 Email: info@employeejustice.com RUSH UNIVERSITY: Bryant Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE BRYANT, SHUNTAY BROWN, and YOLANDA SEALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:26-cv-07696 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2026) challenges certain policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for all time worked, resulting in unpaid overtime. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek. The Defendant maintained a timekeeping and payroll practice of not paying employees for all time worked. Pursuant to his practice, the actual time Plaintiffs and those similarly situated began work and ended work was not recorded or paid as hours worked; instead, Defendant failed to record and pay for all time worked when donning and doffing scrubs, the suit says. Plaintiff Bryant was employed by the Defendant from July 2007 to present, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Specifically, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly Environmental Specialist in the emergency department, says the suit. Rush is an academic medical center that includes a 671-bed hospital serving adults and children.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com jkrasovec@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com SAFE LIFE POLICY: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Life Policy, LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Safe Life Policy, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00772-UNA (D. Del., June 30, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Safe Life Policy, LLC -- https://www.safelifepolicy.com/ -- offers partner with industry-leading insurance carriers to offer your clients the best coverage options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3851 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: droland@coochtaylor.com SEEN FINANCE: Johnson Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kyle Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEEN FINANCE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION D/B/A SEEN.COM, Case No. 26STCV16387 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07125. On May 21, 2026, Plaintiff Kyle Johnson, a California resident, filed the State Court Action against Seen, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Utah. As pertinent here, Plaintiff alleges that Seen violated California law by sending unsolicited commercial emails and tracking Plaintiff on its website, www.seen.com (the "Website").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.318.2770 Facsimile: 424.731.8301 Email: sheridans@ballardspahr.com - and - Brianna R. Howard, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com SEMTECH CORP: Directors Refused to Cure Statutory Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ MARC PREYSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEMTECH CORPORATION, Case No. 2026-0860 (Del Ch., July 1, 2026) is a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint against Semtech arising when Semtech has adopted and maintains bylaw provisions that expand the Company's power beyond what is permissible under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL). According to the complaint, the Company's board of directors refused to cure those facial statutory violations when they were brought to the Board's attention, forcing Plaintiff to commence this litigation to vindicate rights guaranteed to stockholders by Delaware law. On June 3, 2025, the Board approved the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Semtech Corporation (the Bylaws). In the Form 8-K Current Report through which Semtech disclosed this amendment and restatement of the Bylaws, the Company claimed that the amendments, among other things, "revise[d] the procedural and disclosure requirements applicable to stockholders' director nominations and proposals for other business." Recognizing that these facial statutory violations are readily curable, the Plaintiff made a pre-suit demand upon the Board on April 21, 2026. The Board rejected the Demand by letter dated May 15, 2026, necessitating this lawsuit. Semtech designs, manufactures and markets analog and mixed-signal semiconductors.Semtech [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. Jacob D. Jeifa, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com dsborz@andrewsspringer.com apeach@andrewsspringer.com jwarren@andrewsspringer.com jjeifa@andrewsspringer.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Conley Sues Over Noxious Pollutants ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-01424-RJC (W.D. Pa., July 1, 2026) seeks to secure redress from the Defendant for damages suffered by members of the putative class as a result of Defendant's wrongful emission, release, and discharge of noxious and odor-producing pollutants from its coatings manufacturing plant at 372 Cleveland Street, Rochester, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff, the Class Members, and/or their properties have been and continue to be exposed to substantial and unreasonable noxious odors as a result of Defendant's wrongful and tortious conduct in operating the Facility, causing injury and damages through private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence ,the suit says. Plaintiff Jennifer Conley has lived in a residential property at 465 Mecklem Avenue, Rochester, Pennsylvania since August 2021 and has owned the property since January 2025. The Defendant is an Ohio corporation with an extensive business presence in Pennsylvania, and Beaver County more specifically, with several manufacturing and product finishing facilities in the Pittsburgh area, along with many retail paint stores. The Defendant's Facility formulates coatings for packaging materials. From its Facility, the coatings are delivered to customers, distributors, and blending facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com and Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com SIMMZYS LLC: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMMZYS LLC. The case is styled as Justin Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SIMMZYS LLC, Case No. 26STCV20492 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Simmzy's -- https://simmzys.com/ -- is a beachy gastropub & restaurant serving burgers, sandwiches, salads, tacos, craft beer, and good vibes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com SMM FACILITIES INC: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SMM Facilities, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Trinidad Espinoza Mendoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMM Facilities, Inc., Case No. 26CV497270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited (15)." SMM Facilities -- https://www.smmfacilities.com/ -- is Northern California's trusted partner in janitorial, facility management, and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. Mark Dee Potter, Esq. Jason Kyle Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com jasonm@potterhandy.com SOCAL4 LLC: Bouldin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Socal4 LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Aaron Bouldin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Socal4 LLC, Domino's Pizza LLC, Case No. 26STCV20485 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SOCAL4 LLC is a California-based franchise operating numerous Domino's Pizza locations throughout the Greater Los Angeles Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Sued Over FIFA World Cup Faulty Ticket Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Moses Jeanfrancois, writing for Inc., reports that soccer fans are preparing to fight one of the country's largest ticket brokers. On Tuesday, June 30, consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against StubHub Holdings, which claims the platform misled them when buying tickets for 2026's FIFA World Cup. In recent months, many devoted fans have turned to ticket resale marketplaces like SeatGeek, Vivid Seats, and StubHub for seats to the matches. However, some of those who have attempted to purchase a ticket from StubHub have reported faulty ticket transfers. The suit states that StubHub's "FanProtect Guarantee" promised buyers that their tickets would be valid. However, many customers say they received no tickets, had tickets canceled, or experienced ticket-transfer failures close to match time. According to the class action, StubHub's overall selling practices could also be an issue. FIFA's official rules state that only the football association's own marketplace could be used for resales and warned that it could invalidate tickets bought through third-party marketplaces. "StubHub misrepresents its authority to sell World Cup Tickets, then, when Plaintiffs and Class members travel thousands of miles to attend World Cup matches, there are no tickets to be found despite having paid for them," the suit stated. "This is a new low for a sports ticketing industry that has been rampant with consumer protection issues time and time again to the detriment of the fans who make sports special." Money and time lost Blake Hunter Yagman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told Inc. that StubHub should have known not to sell "tickets it either does not have or is not authorized to sell." "The World Cup is more than just a soccer tournament, it means so much to millions of people," he said. "People from around the world traveled in hopes of attending matches, and it's devastating to our clients and the thousands of fans who made that journey only to show up to the stadium gates empty-handed." As of July 1, 2026, the class action names two people as plantiffs. Julie Reeker Moghal alleges she paid $1,905 for three World Cup tickets, received notice they were ready, and then had the order canceled. She says she never received either the tickets or a refund. Reuben Renteria alleges he paid $2,294.69 for two tickets, traveled to Mexico for the match, learned StubHub had canceled the order, and received a refund only after missing the event and incurring travel costs. The class action seeks refunds and compensation for ticket purchases that were not honored by StubHub, as well as other losses caused by the missing tickets, including travel expenses. The plaintiffs are also seeking an injunction preventing StubHub from continuing to sell World Cup tickets. The suit has estimated overall damages for StubHub to reach over $5 million. In a statement to Inc., StubHub said they would not touch on the pending litigation. "Our singular goal is to get fans into events, and if anything goes wrong, our FanProtect Guarantee provides replacement tickets or a full refund," the company said. "The World Cup is no different, and the issues fans have experienced are largely driven by problems with the event organizer's own ticketing infrastructure." Communication misses goals FIFA, a 100 percent market share over the distribution and sale of the 2026 North American World Cup tickets, told Inc. it can only guarantee the validity and delivery of tickets purchased through its official platform, and rejected StubHub's claims of a faulty "ticketing infrastructure." "FIFA's official FIFA World Cup 2026™ ticketing platform is operating reliably at scale, as demonstrated by over 5 million people attending matches to date, with tickets successfully purchased, delivered, resold, transferred and validated through FIFA's systems," a spokesperson said. "FIFA has no visibility over, or control of, secondary market ticket transactions carried out on third-party platforms." [GN] SUMMIT CAPITAL: Isle Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TRENT E. ISLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, LP d/b/a RNR TIRE EXPRESS, Case No. 2:26-cv-00458-MPB-MG (S.D. Ind., July 1, 2026) is a collective action against RNR Express pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime pay violations. Plaintiff Isle brings this action for himself and all current and/or former employees of RNR Express who were not paid earned overtime compensation, but were instead, paid only scheduled hours worked rather than complete hours worked. The Plaintiff and his fellow RNR Tire Express hourly paid coworkers were not properly paid overtime for the many hours each worked in excess of 40 each week. Isle worked for RNR Tire Express at its Terre Haute, Indiana location from approximately May 2023 until his employment was terminated on or about August 4, 2025. Isle always worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of RNR Tire Express. The suit alleges that RNR Tire Express failed and refused to pay Isle for all of his hours worked and recorded on RNR Tire Express's time keeping system, but would instead only pay Isle for 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. Most, if not all weeks he worked, Isle was not paid at all for the many overtime hours he worked every regular five day work week, says the suit. The Defendant is an automotive investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. 100 Cherry Street P.O. Box 1527 Terre Haute, IN 47808 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces Suit Over SheaMoisture Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Sundial Brands LLC. Why: The plaintiff claims Sundial Brands falsely advertised its SheaMoisture products as being made entirely with virgin coconut oil. Where: The SheaMoisture class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Sundial Brands falsely advertises its SheaMoisture products as being made entirely with virgin coconut oil. Plaintiff Ruffina Yuryeva filed the class action complaint against Sundial Brands on June 11 in California federal court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Sundial Brands falsely markets its SheaMoisture hair, personal and baby care products as containing "100% Virgin Coconut Oil" on their front labels, misleading consumers into thinking that virgin coconut oil is the exclusive or predominant ingredient. The lawsuit claims that this representation is false, as the products contain multiple other ingredients and coconut oil is not the main component. Yuryeva says she purchased a SheaMoisture Moisture & Smooth Conditioner in Los Angeles, California, relying on the "100% Virgin Coconut Oil" label. She claims she would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it had she known the truth about its ingredients. SheaMoisture allegedly violates state consumer protection laws Yuryeva's lawsuit argues that Sundial Brands' labeling practices are misleading and violate California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. The class action lawsuit further claims that the company's labeling allows it to charge a premium price for the products, which are marketed as natural, plant-based and containing premium ingredients. "Consumers purchase SheaMoisture products, and pay a price premium for them, because the '100% Virgin Coconut Oil' signals a premium prominent ingredient," the SheaMoisture class action says. Yuryeva seeks to represent a class of all consumers who purchased the SheaMoisture products in California during the applicable limitations period. She is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and breach of express warranty and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive relief. In other skincare news, Conopco, a Unilever subsidiary, is facing allegations it falsely advertised its Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash as hypoallergenic. The plaintiff is represented by Leon Ozeran of The Law Offices of Leon Ozeran. The SheaMoisture class action lawsuit is Yuryeva v. Sundial Brands LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-06387, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SYNEAR FOODS USA: Bakirov Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synear Foods USA, LLC. The case is styled as Marat Bakirov, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Synear Foods USA, LLC, Case No. 26STCV20958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Synear Food -- https://synearusa.com/ -- is one of the largest Chinese frozen food productions in China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law - and - William Tran, Esq. Nicholas Demirjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave. Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: w.tran@d.law SYNGENTA CROP: Thomas Sues over Unlawful Distribution of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------ Demetrious Thomas, and others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-06-285-PQT (Del. Super. Ct., June 24, 2026), is brought for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintain 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 its use. The Plaintiff' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff bring this action for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff Demetrious Thomas's exposure to Paraquat, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. Syngenta is a Delaware LLC whose membership traces to Syngenta Corporation, which is incorporated and headquartered in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 457-7728 Fax: (401) 457-7708 Email: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TBD BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that TBD Brands, LLC falsely markets its line of YoPup Frozen Yogurt Cups, given that the dog treats do not contain the lactic acid-producing bacteria required under federal regulations for the product to be lawfully labeled as yogurt. The 19-page complaint contends that TBD Brands has misled consumers into believing that its banana and peanut butter-, apple juice and cheddar-, and pumpkin and bacon-flavored YoPup cups are yogurt-based dog treats that confer the gut-health benefits commonly associated with yogurt. However, the lawsuit alleges that independent testing revealed that the YoPup treats lack the bacteria necessary to ferment dairy into yogurt. According to the complaint, the bacteria Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus are responsible for yogurt fermentation. When combined with dairy ingredients, these bacteria convert milk sugars into lactic acid, which gives yogurt its characteristic texture and digestive benefits, the filing explains. The suit references federal food labeling regulations meant to prevent consumer deception and establish uniform standards. Under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, the complaint says, the standard of identity for yogurt by law requires yogurt to be produced by culturing dairy ingredients with a characterizing bacterial culture containing those bacteria. The suit points to genome DNA testing conducted by an independent laboratory in February 2026. The testing, capable of detecting "the presence of even trace amounts of an organism in a sample," allegedly found neither of the bacteria required for yogurt fermentation in YoPup products. Despite the findings, YoPup's packaging "prominently and unequivocally" represents the treats as yogurt products, the class action lawsuit says. TBD Brands, as the manufacturer and marketer of YoPup cups, knew or should have known that the treats did not contain yogurt and should not have been labeled as such, the complaint argues, noting potential violations of the New York General Business Law. The case further claims that the presence of yogurt is particularly important in dairy-based products marketed for dogs as they generally lack sufficient lactase enzymes to digest dairy products, whereas the bacteria in yogurt fermentation naturally help break down lactose. The suit also claims that the results of the independent testing are consistent with the product's "Guaranteed Analysis" back-label panel, which identifies the four microorganisms found in the product, none of which are the key lactic acid-producing bacteria in the federal definition of yogurt. The YoPup class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who purchased at least one of the products in New York during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] TERRIO PHYSICAL THERAPY: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrio Physical Therapy-Fitness, Inc. The case is styled as Carol Allen and June Evans on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terrio Physical Therapy-Fitness, Inc., Case No. 26CUB02438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Terrio Physical Therapy-Fitness, Inc. -- https://myterrio.com/ -- is a physical therapy clinic in Bakersfield, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611-7502 Phone: 872-263-1100 Fax: 866-748-6220 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com THORNTONS LLC: Phillips Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chondra Phillips, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the State of California, and other aggrieved employees; Michelle Panks Griffin, Shanee Levonne Mcgee, Jonathon William King, Andrew Munoz, Letty Norine King, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THORNTONS LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV093743 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 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06640. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff commenced an action against Thorntons by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda asserting causes of action for failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. Spencer C. Ladd, Esq. Dongying Zhang, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com sladd@constangy.com dzhang@constangy.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-909-7775 Email: ksulzer@constangy.com TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Boyle Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cecilia Boyle, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04517 (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2026), is brought as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that Defendant detected on February 4, 2026 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and individuals impacted by the Data Breach (the "Class" and the "Class Members") directly or indirectly provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all persons whose Private Information was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant administers the payment of insurance premiums and provides customer service for bi-weekly mortgage acceleration programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (215) 888-3214 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Causion Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linette Causion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04496 (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard individuals' personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Personal Information"), including, inter alia, their names, contact information, Social Security numbers, and financial account information. On February 3, 2026, Defendant experienced a data security incident when an unauthorized party breached its cybersecurity systems, leading to the compromise of the Personal Information Defendant collects and maintains (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Defendant 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. The Defendant failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, despite possessing the financial resources and technological means to do so. Its misconduct includes failing to detect and prevent the Data Breach, failing to encrypt sensitive data, failing to adequately notify affected individuals in a timely manner, and not taking necessary steps to safeguard data post-breach. As a result of Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy Defendant's failures and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all United States residents whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has suffered actual injury from having Plaintiff's Personal Information exposed and/or stolen as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant TAS is a financial services and insurance company which primarily administers payment of insurance premiums and bi-weekly mortgage acceleration programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com TRIBUTE STORE US: Bukata Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Marta Bukata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIBUTE STORE US, LLC, Case No. 2026CH04946 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on June 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07667. The Plaintiff alleges that Tribute Store violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA") by using the identities of deceased individuals, including names and likenesses, for commercial purposes without obtaining prior written consent. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Tribute Store operates an online platform that markets and sells memorial products, primarily "memorial trees," through links embedded in obituary webpages hosted by affiliated funeral homes and crematoria. Plaintiff further claims that Tribute Store incorporates decedents' names, photographs, and memorial language (e.g., "In loving memory") into a purchase interface designed to encourage transactions from obituary viewers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Scott Priz, Esq. PRIZ LAW LLC 3230 S. Harlem Ave., Suite 221B Riverside, IL 60546 Phone: (708) 762-3143 Email: priz@priz-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq. William F. Northrip, Esq. Tara D. Kennedy, Esq. Grecia M. Saenz, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7700 Email: mwolfe@shb.com wnorthrip@shb.com tkennedy@shb.com gsaenzhamilton@shb.com UNITED WHOLESALE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lafountain Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY LAFOUNTAIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-12237-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., July 1, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Accordingly, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about their customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach of Mercadien, a third-party vendor utilized by Defendant (the Data Breach). The Defendant retained and/or retains Mercadien, a professional services firm providing advisory, tax, accounting, and mergers and acquisitions services, to perform services involving the collection, storage, and/or processing of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. On or about November 7, 2025, Mercadien discovered it had been hacked in the Data Breach that compromised sensitive information entrusted to it by the Defendant. The Defendant required Plaintiff and Class Members to provide their PII in order to obtain services from, or maintain a relationship with, Defendant. By collecting and maintaining this information, Defendant assumed a duty to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and to ensure that any third-party vendor entrusted with such information, including Mercadien, implemented and maintained reasonable data security measures. The Defendant was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from unauthorized access, disclosure, and misuse and for ensuring that such information was stored in a secure manner, says the suit. The Defendant is a mortgage lender, purchase lender and wholesale lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com VAIL RESORTS: Hebert Employment Suit Removed to D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DOMINIQUE HEBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY and THE VAIL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2026-CV-30153, was removed from the District Court for Broomfield County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on June 26, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02889 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the potential class members, claims that he was not provided with rest breaks as required under Colorado law. He asserts three claims for relief under various Colorado wage laws: (1) violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act for alleged failure to pay wages due; (2) violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act for alleged failure to pay minimum wages due; and (3) civil theft for failure to pay minimum wages due. Vail Resorts Management Company is an American mountain resort company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Hillary R. Ross, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com hross@fisherphillips.com VALERO ENERGY: Mann Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMILIAN MANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION, VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01635 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from the Defendants' retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendants' systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to their own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants are obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Valero Energy Corporation is a manufacturer and marketer of petroleum and low-carbon transportation fuels, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Valero Marketing and Supply Company is a subsidiary of Valero Energy Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 1089 Willowcreek Road Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com VERACITY WELLNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Metabolism Ignite Capsule ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Veracity's Metabolism Ignite supplements are deceptively advertised as natural, safer substitutes for prescription GLP-1 medications as they do not contain the synthetic GLP-1 agonists responsible for the weight loss results of the medications. The 25-page complaint contends that Veracity Wellness Inc. has attempted to "swindle Americans" and cash in on the multi-billion-dollar GLP-1 market by promoting that its Metabolism Ignite capsule provides the same benefits as injectable GLP-1s -- appetite suppression, weight loss, food noise reduction -- without any of the potential consequences, such as vision loss, stomach damage, and heart muscle breakdown. The lawsuit alleges, however, that because the supplement is void of the molecular compounds that make GLP-1 medications like Ozempic and Wegovy effective, Veracity's marketing is "intentionally misleading," as the product is unequivocally incapable of matching their results. The filing also charges that Veracity's advertising strategy "selectively emphasizes" the risks of GLP-1s, "often without equivalent context regarding clinical benefits or prevalence," so as to induce consumers to believe its supplements are "a more balanced solution" to synthetic GLP-1 agonists while offering the same results. According to the complaint, Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is a hormone made in the small intestine and brain that triggers the release of insulin, blocks the release of glucose into the bloodstream, slows stomach emptying, and increases feelings of fullness. Per the suit, the naturally-produced GLP-1 hormone has a roughly minute-long half-life, meaning it is quickly dissolved by the body's enzymes. Per the suit, Veracity touts that Metabolism Ignite can boost or support natural GLP-1 production with its plant-based supplement and that it will translate into appetite control, weight loss, and the other outcomes of GLP-1 medications. Synthetic GLP-1s, on the other hand, have been modified to make the molecular agonists more resistant to breaking down and have a half-life of nearly seven days when injected, the filing says. Further, the case claims that Veracity's marketing selectively stresses the potential adverse effects of synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications to "leverag[e] consumer anxiety" and position its product as not only a more sustainable, over-the-counter alternative, but a safer one. However, the lawsuit claims that it is impossible for the Metabolism Ignite supplements to deliver the same results as GLP-1 agonist medications. "[Veracity] omitted material information necessary to prevent the advertising from being misleading, including that the Product was not demonstrated to produce clinically meaningful GLP-1 agonist-like outcomes and that any purported GLP-1 'support' did not equate to the sustained receptor activation associated with prescription GLP-1 agonists," the filing summarizes. The suit contends that Veracity has continued to run a large-scale marketing campaign across social media and print ads in which it overstates the efficacy of its supplements while accentuating the risks of prescription alternatives. As a result, many consumers have been influenced to believe that Metabolism Ignite is a meaningful stand-in for GLP-1 agonist medications, the case contends. The plaintiff, a California resident, says she purchased the supplements in February 2026 after seeing an Instagram ad that promoted they were safe to use while breastfeeding, whereas concerns exist for injectable GLP-1 use while breastfeeding. Based on the company's marketing, the plaintiff believed the supplement would provide similar results to synthetic medications, including improved energy, weight loss, and appetite control, the suit says. The Veracity class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased the Metabolism Ignite capsules during the relevant statute of limitations period. [GN] VERRA MOBILITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Verra Mobility Corporation ("Verra" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRRM) and reminds investors of the August 4, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Verra's relationship with Avis Budget Group ("Avis"), and in particular obtaining a contract extension with Avis. Further, the Company minimized concerns that major rent-a-cars could replace Verra with in-house solutions or outsourced alternatives. On May 26, 2026, Verra issued a press release announcing a termination notice from Avis regarding its contract and accordingly lowered its 2026 full-year financial outlook. Almost one week later on June 1, 2026, the Company announced a sudden and surprising transition of its President and Chief Executive Officer David Roberts. Following this news, the price of Verra's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $13.08 per share on May 26, 2026, Verra's stock price fell to $3.85 per share on May 27, 2026, a decline of about 71%. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Verra's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Verra class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/VRRM or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Investors Regarding the Verra Mobility Securities Class Action Lawsuit: What is the Verra Mobility securities fraud lawsuit about? The lawsuit alleges Verra Mobility misled investors about the strength of its relationship with Avis Budget Group, the likelihood of a contract extension, and the risk that major rental car companies could replace Verra's services with alternative solutions. Who may be eligible to participate in the lawsuit? Investors who purchased or acquired Verra Mobility (NASDAQ: VRRM) securities between February 24, 2026 and May 26, 2026 may be eligible to participate if they suffered losses related to the alleged misconduct described in the complaint. What is a lead plaintiff, and how can I seek appointment? A lead plaintiff represents the interests of the proposed class and helps oversee the litigation. Investors seeking appointment must file a motion with the court by August 4, 2026. Investors can share in any recovery without serving as lead plaintiff. What should investors do if they purchased Verra Mobility stock during the Class Period? Investors should review their transaction records, preserve relevant documents, and evaluate their legal rights. Those who suffered losses may wish to consult counsel regarding participation in the lawsuit or seeking lead plaintiff status before the deadline. Why should investors contact Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP? Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has represented investors in securities litigation for decades and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders. Investors who purchased Verra Mobility securities during the Class Period may contact the firm to discuss their legal rights, potential claims, and the lead plaintiff process at no cost or obligation. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/7f60c456-51b6-4096-a862-d5d3beda6cc5 [GN] VISA INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that On June 29, 2026, Judge Noël Wise of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action against a payment technology company (the "Company") and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Beibei Cai v. Visa Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-08220 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2026). In granting the motion with prejudice, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead loss causation. We previously covered the Court's earlier dismissal of the consolidated class action complaint here. According to the second amended complaint, the Company is a payment technology company that, along with certain of its current and former officers, allegedly made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's high routing volume -- i.e., the number of transactions processed through its debit network -- between March 2, 2023 and September 23, 2024 (the "Putative Class Period"). Plaintiffs alleged that these alleged statements concealed the impact of the Durbin Amendment and a related regulatory disclosure (the "Regulation II Clarification") on the Company's debit network. Plaintiffs alleged that the truth was revealed through (i) a September 23, 2024, Bloomberg article, published after the market closed that same day, reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") planned to file an antitrust suit against the Company, (ii) a September 24, 2024, New York Times article reporting that it expected the DOJ to sue the Company, and (iii) the DOJ antitrust complaint, which was filed on the same day as the New York Times article. Plaintiffs alleged that, taken together, these revelations caused the Company's stock price to drop. Addressing loss causation, the Court stated that while plaintiffs "are not required to prove loss causation at the motion to dismiss stage, they must (1) allege a 'significant' drop in price, and (2) allege with particularity facts plausibly suggesting that the fraud caused the stock drop, as opposed to some other fact." The Court first assessed whether plaintiffs had adequately alleged a causal connection between the alleged corrective disclosures and the decline in the Company's stock price. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint for failure to do so, and the Court similarly held that the second amended complaint did not cure the pleading defect. In so holding, the Court explained that plaintiffs' new allegations failed to plausibly tie the stock decline to the New York Times article or to the DOJ complaint that was filed the same day. The Court further held that plaintiffs did not "identify any allegations that the drop in stock price was due to the DOJ complaint and not some other, unrelated factor." Turning to whether plaintiffs had alleged a significant enough stock price drop to adequately plead loss causation, the Court observed that it had previously dismissed the initial amended complaint partially because the modest price decline -- amounting to approximately 6.6% over two trading days -- was followed by a "quick and sustained price recovery" that undercut any inference of loss causation. In seeking to cure this deficiency, plaintiffs attached and summarized the report of a retained expert who opined that the decline was statistically significant. The Court held that the expert's opinions were not an adequate substitute for well-pleaded facts. The Court further held that "conducting and recounting the findings of an analysis is inherently an opinion." Because the new allegations in the second amended complaint were primarily opinions rather than well-pleaded facts, the Court concluded that plaintiffs' second amended complaint failed to plead loss causation and dismissed the Section 10(b) claim. Having found that plaintiffs failed to state an underlying Section 10(b) claim, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' control person liability claim against the individual defendants under Section 20(a). Because plaintiffs had already been afforded an opportunity to amend, and identified no new alleged facts that could support the claim, the Court determined that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. [GN] WAFFLE HOUSE: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Zilber, writing for NY Post, reports that Waffle House has illegally been charging employees who use tobacco an extra $92 a month for health insurance through an unlawful surcharge program, a former server alleges in a proposed class-action lawsuit seeking more than $5 million. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleges the restaurant giant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by imposing tobacco surcharges without giving workers the option to avoid the fees by joining a smoking-cessation program. Corkeitha Hicks, who worked as a server at a Waffle House restaurant in Forsyth, Ga., claims in her June 23 suit that she paid the surcharge after enrolling in the company's health plan. According to the lawsuit, Waffle House deducted roughly $23 a week from her paycheck -- about $92 a month, or $1,104 annually. The lawsuit seeks to cover Waffle House employees across the country who paid the tobacco surcharge during the past six years. According to the complaint, Waffle House operates more than 2,000 restaurants in 25 states and requires workers signing up for company health insurance to disclose whether they use tobacco. Employees who say they use tobacco are charged an extra $92 a month to keep their health coverage, according to the lawsuit. Hicks argues the surcharge violates federal benefits law because employers can only charge smokers more if they also offer a qualifying wellness program that gives workers a meaningful way to avoid the fee. Waffle House offers employees a smoking-cessation program called Quit for Life. According to the lawsuit, workers who completed the program by Sept. 30 could get their tobacco surcharges refunded for that plan year and stop paying the extra fee going forward. But employees who finished the program after Sept. 30 could only avoid future surcharges and weren't reimbursed for what they had already paid, the complaint alleges. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for employees who paid Waffle House's tobacco surcharge over the past six years. Hicks also claims Waffle House failed to clearly tell employees in all of its health plan materials that they could avoid the surcharge by completing the program. The lawsuit further alleges Waffle House improperly kept the money collected through the tobacco surcharge instead of using it for the employee health plan. "In sum, these practices demonstrate that Waffle House's wellness program is an unreasonable, revenue-generating scheme disguised as a health initiative," the complaint states. [GN] WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Citlally S. Rosales, others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV015515 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Walmart -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com WALMART INC: Mehrkens Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc., et al. The case is styled as Whitney Mehrkens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 26CV015081 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort." Walmart Inc. -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational omnichannel retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Michele Supanich, Esq. OFC PUBLIC DEFENDERS 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd., Ste. 530 Los Angeles, CA 90045-6260 Phone: 310-727-6200 Fax: 310-727-0583 Email: cpattinson@pubdef.lacounty.gov WASHINGTON POST: Sued Over Subscription's Surveillance Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the Washington Post has covertly harvested subscribers' personal data and online content engagement habits to determine individualized subscription costs via surveillance pricing. The 28-page complaint contends that the centuries-old newspaper and media company spent years developing a sophisticated data-collection infrastructure for its digital platform that tracked subscribers' reading habits, content preferences, browsing activity, demographic information, location data, and other personal information to curate detailed consumer profiles. According to the lawsuit, the Washington Post has used this information to implement a surveillance pricing model to generate individual subscription rates based on a subscriber's interests and behaviors. The suit alleges that, in lieu of offering standard market rates as it had in the past, WaPo has charged different prices to different consumers since at least December 2024, based on what its algorithms predict they would be willing to pay. "Rather than rewarding loyalty, The Post's system converted Subscribers' engagement into leverage against them," the complaint describes. "Longtime Subscribers would end up paying more than new customers simply because the company knew more about them." The lawsuit claims that the Post's data collection and pricing practices remained largely hidden from subscribers for years. According to the filing, consumers reasonably believed that the advertised subscription price represented a straightforward transaction, when the company had also collected personal data allegedly used to "maximize its profits" and set future subscription rates. Further, the case argues that subscribers had no reasonable way to determine whether the subscription prices they were offered reflected a standard market rate or an individualized rate generated by the company's pricing system. Unlike traditional pricing, where consumers can compare prices to determine whether to go through with a purchase, subscribers lacked access to the information required to evaluate whether subscription prices were fair, the filing relays. The complaint says the Washington Post was forced to admit to its algorithmic pricing in March 2026 after the State of New York enacted a new law requiring companies to disclose when they use algorithms based on consumers' data to set prices. After the truth was unveiled, the suit says, consumers were enraged and began to question why they were being charged different amounts for the same newspaper. According to the complaint, regulators and policymakers, including the Federal Trade Commission, have increasingly scrutinized surveillance pricing and warned that the use of sensitive consumer data to feed algorithms raises significant privacy and consumer protection concerns. The case notes that the defendant's surveillance pricing was not fully disclosed in the terms of the Washington Post's privacy policy during the years it was running. The suit contends that the full scope of the Washington Post's data harvesting remains unknown. The complaint claims that although the company disclosed in a new December 2025 privacy policy that it would be analyzing cookies and browsing activity to build profiles of subscribers, the privacy policy claims to authorize the Post to use data from affiliates such as Amazon, which, like the Washington Post, is owned by Jeff Bezos. The case states that the Washington Post is building subscriber profiles that could be used to "assess, segment, and monetize readers" via individualized pricing and "throttled content." "While someone might recognize that a company may use browser cookies or some general information to provide consumers with desired products, Subscribers do not expect that the vast trove of their personal data would be used against them to set unfavorable, higher prices based on their demographic characteristics or behaviors," the filing stresses. The Washington Post class action lawsuit looks to represent all current and former subscribers who, while residing in Washington, D.C., purchased a subscription to the Washington Post at any time during the statute of limitations period and who maintained an active subscription while it was gathering data for its surveillance pricing model. [GN] WIESE USA INC: Wilkerson Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wiese USA Inc. The case is styled as Casey Wilkerson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wiese USA Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-01040 (E.D. Mo., June 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wiese Inc. -- https://wieseusa.com/ -- is a material handling machinery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com YELP INC: Fails to Pay Premium Wages, Cuervo Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO CUERVO, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. YELP INC., a Delaware Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV20947 (Cal. Super., July 1, 2026) alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from November 4, 2024 through September 12, 2025. Throughout all relevant times, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees experienced computer malfunctions, login errors, software issues, or system crashes that required restarting the computer and repeating the entire boot-up process. During this time, the Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees remained under Defendants' control and were required to wait until the computer became operational before they could clock in. The time spent waiting for the computer to boot up was not accurately recorded or compensated. As a result, by the time Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees successfully logged into the employer's timekeeping system, several minutes -- often up to five minutes or more -- had already elapsed. Th Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for this pre- shift work time, resulting in unpaid wages for all hours worked, the suit says. Yelp is an American company that develops the Yelp.com website and the Yelp mobile app, which publishes crowd-sourced reviews about businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-010 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that on June 29, 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain of its directors and officers, as well as the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Nopphol Buathongsri v. Zenas Biopharma, Inc., et al., No. 25-10988 (D. Mass. June 29, 2026). In dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the Court held that plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company's IPO. According to the complaint, the Company is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing immuno-based therapies. The Company conducted its IPO on September 13, 2024, pursuant to a registration statement that depicted its development pipeline for its four ongoing clinical trials. Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of all investors who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement for the Company's IPO. Plaintiff alleged that the registration statement omitted that the Company's research and development ("R&D") expenses and cash burn had materially increased between the first and second quarters of 2024, and that the R&D expenses and cash burn remained at an elevated rate throughout the already in-progress third quarter. According to the complaint, the failure to separately disclose those quarterly figures allegedly misled investors into believing the Company was spending less quickly than it actually was. The Court first addressed whether the alleged omission of quarterly and intra-quarter financial data rendered the registration statement misleading. The Court noted that plaintiff did not dispute that the disclosed financials were accurate, nor did plaintiff identify any provision requiring disclosure of quarterly or in-progress data. The Court found that plaintiff's theory was belied by the registration statement itself, which disclosed that the Company spent more than $56 million on R&D in the first half of 2024 -- nearly double the prior six months -- and that the Company repeatedly warned that its R&D spending and losses were high and expected to increase for the foreseeable future. Thus, the Court reasoned that plaintiff's contention rested on an unreasonable inference that spending had peaked in early 2024 and declined in the third quarter because the Company's own disclosures did not support this inference. The Court held that requiring further disclosures under these circumstances would amount to an untenable across-the-board rule requiring clinical-stage biotechnology firms to disclose in-progress quarterly burn-rate data. Turning to Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K, the Court held that the registration statement did not fail to disclose a known trend or uncertainty. Specifically, the Court held that, even assuming the increased spending was a "trend," the Company's disclosure in the registration statement was adequate because the roughly 50% quarter-over-quarter increase in R&D spending was fully consistent with the disclosed first-half 2024 figures. The Court further observed that, when assessing the ways that R&D spending could double from one six-month period to the next, a fifty-percent quarterly increase was "something like a straight line." The Court explained that an issuer conducting a public offering is not obligated to disclose interim results for a quarter in progress whenever it perceives that those results may disappoint the market. Having found that plaintiff failed to plead an underlying Section 11 violation, the Court dismissed the Section 15 control person liability claim against the individual defendants, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. [GN] ********* 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 ***