260715.mbx

260715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 15, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 140 Headlines 33/40 HOUSTON: Appeals Court Order in Gomez Suit to 5th Circuit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Di Lorenzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ADVANTAGE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goldberg Says AEROTEK AVIATION: Brea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALABAMA: Mental Healthcare Injunction in Dunn v. DOC Mostly Upheld ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Denial in Hossfeld TCPA Suit Upheld AMBASSADOR FISH: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMERICAN GENERAL: Networld Inc. Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Harris Sues Over Unsecured Personal Data AWOL VISION: Russo Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind AZ DWELLINGS: Banfield Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Call BALLY'S CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Randolph Says BLUE SUNDAY: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CG BLACK FINANCIAL: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Secure PII CHOBANI LLC: Rabinowitz Balks at Deceptive Yogurt Labels COMFORT SYSTEM: Walton Prevailing Wage Claims Allowed CREDIT PROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hughes Sr. Says DECKERS OUTDOOR: Norberg Suit Removed to C.D. California DSI SECURITY SERVICES: Hedger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EATON CORPORATION: Manouselis Suit Removed to C.D. California EQUIFAX INC: Clark Suit Removed to D. Colorado EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goyette Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA FASTENAL COMPANY: Hawkins-Brentt Suit Removed to E.D. California FASTENAL COMPANY: Ibarra Suit Removed to N.D. California FLORA FOOD US INC: Slowinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FRESENIUS KABI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossi Suit Alleges GC SERVICES: Molinar Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages GENERAL MILLS: Most Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Improper Use of Rental Algorithm HALEON US: Faces Garland Suit Over Mislabeled Toothpaste Product HEAT MEDIA: Hanson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations IN RE PAYMENT: Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 16 INSULET CORP: Faces Hu Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gueits Says KNOWBE4 INC: Clair Appeals Court Order to the Sup. Ct. of Delaware MARY JANE: Swagerty Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 6th Cir. MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Monninger Says METRO WEST: Faces Reign Wage-and-Hour Suit in Oregon METRO WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges MOSSY AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ropero Suit Claims PATTERN BRANDS: Faces Wise Suit for Invasion of Privacy PERSONAL ASSISTANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges PETER DE PAOLA: "Jaeger" ERISA Class Action Administratively Closed PLASTIC SURGERY: Claude Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PROCTER & GAMBLE: Oliver Sues Over Deceptive Toothpaste Labels RICCIARDI BROTHERS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SALEM, NJ: Final Approval of Dana Class Settlement Affirmed SEA MAR: Removes Gillum Class Suit From State Court to W.D. Wash. ST. LOUIS, MO: Prohibition Writ Bars Roberts Claim Against City STS OPERATING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Shahid Claims SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Bar Date Set for Aug. 16 TARTER KRINSKY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Geiger Suit Alleges TOWER ADMINSTRATIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shetley Alleges TRANSCORE LP: Penning Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info UNION ELECTRIC: Judgment Dismissing Buck Without Prejudice Affirmed UNITED AIRLINES: Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Doe Suit VENTURA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Richardson Says WEBINARTV INC: Gaines Sues Over Data Privacy Violations WESTOVER COMPANIES: Faces Grillo Suit Over Failure to Prevent Fire WEX INC: Mayberry Balks at Health Coverage Processing Fees WHITE CASTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rrugeja Alleges ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Tejada Suit Over Stock Price Decline ********* 33/40 HOUSTON: Appeals Court Order in Gomez Suit to 5th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- 33/40 HOUSTON, LLC, doing business as The Vault Gentlemen's Club, is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Lilibeth Gomez, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 33/40 Houston, LLC, doing business as The Vault Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-3749, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is styled as Gomez v. 33/40 Houston, Case No. 26-20351, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LILIBETH GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, is represented by: William Marshall Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 808 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Defendant-Appellant 33/40 HOUSTON, LLC, doing business as The Vault Gentlemen's Club, is represented by: Albert Thomas Van Huff, Esq. MONSHAUGEN & VAN HUFF, PC 1225 North Loop, W. Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 880-2992 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Di Lorenzo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luciana Di Lorenzo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., inclusive, Case No. 2026-CH-05172 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07792. The Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") (Count 1); Unjust Enrichment (Count 2); and Money Had and Received (Count 3).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William E. Ridgway, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 320 S. Canal Street Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Facsimile: (312) 407-0411 Email: william.ridgway@skadden.com - and - Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq. Shaud G. Tavakoli, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 Email: meredith.slawe@skadden.com michael.mctigue@skadden.com shaud.tavakoli@skadden.com ADVANTAGE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goldberg Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANTAGE SOLUTIONS INC.; ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC; DAYMON WORLDWIDE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21207 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Goldberg was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Advantage Solutions Inc. operates as a marketing agency. The Company offers brand building, market research, analytics, content and plan development, business process outsourcing, retail merchandising, in-store sampling, digital commerce, and shopper marketing services. Advantage Solutions serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Benowitz, Esq. Genna Walsh, Esq. BENOWITZ LAW CORPORATION 8605 Santa Monica Boulevard West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (747) 233-1600 Email: Louis@BenowitzLaw.com Genna@BenowitzLaw.com AEROTEK AVIATION: Brea Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerotek Aviation, LLC, et al. The case is styled as James Brea, and other members of the general public similarly situated v. Aerotek Aviation, LLC, Does 1 to 10, Case No. 26CV015734 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Aerotek Aviation LLC -- https://aerotekaviation.com/ -- is a premier provider of landing gear parts and hard to find spares for aircraft.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Archer, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Email: cody@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ALABAMA: Mental Healthcare Injunction in Dunn v. DOC Mostly Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOSHUA DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, EDWARD BRAGGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, TEDRICK BROOKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, GARY LEE BROYLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellants-Cross, Appellees, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-10292 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: a. affirmed the district court's findings that the Alabama Department of Corrections (DOC) violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to inmates' serious mental healthcare needs; and b. upheld most of the system-wide remedial injunction and monitoring order but reversed limited portions of the relief. Between 2015 and 2016, the suicide rate among inmates in Alabama Department of Corrections facilities was more than twice the national average for state and federal correctional facilities. During a 15-month period while the litigation was ongoing, 15 Alabama inmates died by suicide. The Plaintiffs argued that the high suicide rates resulted in large part from the DOC's deliberate indifference to inmates' serious mental healthcare needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. After years of litigation, the district court agreed and ordered comprehensive, system-wide injunctive relief to address constitutional violations involving mental healthcare treatment in Alabama's prison system. The district court conducted extensive proceedings in the case, reviewing thousands of pages of documentary evidence, holding two seven-week bench trials, and issuing nearly 1,000 pages of findings addressing liability and remedies. The court's work in managing the complex litigation was thorough and comprehensive. The Eleventh Circuit explained that while federal courts do not oversee prisons as "super-wardens," they must still enforce prisoners' constitutional rights and may order system-wide relief when required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The appeal concerned whether the district court properly issued permanent prospective relief under the PLRA and the Eighth Amendment in a long-running class action against the Alabama Department of Corrections. The district court divided the litigation into three phases: Phase 1 addressed ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims involving physical disabilities; Phase 2A involved Eighth Amendment, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and due process claims concerning inadequate mental healthcare; and Phase 2B involves Eighth Amendment claims related to inadequate medical and dental care. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed only the Eighth Amendment claims from Phase 2A. In November 2016, the district court certified a Phase 2A class consisting "of all persons with a serious mental illness who are, or will be, confined within the DOC's prisons, excluding Tutwiler Prison for Women and the work-release centers." The Phase 2A Plaintiffs include seriously mentally ill Alabama prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. They sued the DOC officials John Hamm and Ruth Haglitch in their official capacities, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on allegations that the DOC provided constitutionally inadequate mental healthcare in its prison facilities. From December 2016 through February 2017, the district court held a seven-week bench trial on the DOC's liability under the Eighth Amendment, hearing testimony from inmates, officials, and experts, and reviewing thousands of pages of documentary evidence. In a 302-page Liability Order, the court concluded that the DOC's mental healthcare system was constitutionally inadequate and held the Commissioners liable in their official capacities for Eighth Amendment violations, identifying seven contributing factors in addition to overarching problems of understaffing and overcrowding On December 27, 2021, following further mediation efforts and a seven-week evidentiary hearing, the district court issued a 46-page Omnibus Remedial Order, supported by findings under the PLRA, setting forth system-wide relief to address the constitutional deficiencies identified in its 2017 liability decision. After reviewing whether conditions had improved, recounting evidence of continued inmate suicides, and explaining in detail why each form of relief satisfied the PLRA's need, narrowness, and intrusiveness requirements, the court entered permanent remedial relief. Several months before issuing its Omnibus Remedial Order, the district court entered a separate Monitoring Order establishing a system to oversee compliance with its remedial directives. The court adopted the DOC's proposal that outside experts initially monitor compliance and train an internal team to eventually assume that role, citing the DOC’s admitted inability to self-monitor. The court made the findings required by the PLRA, explaining that outside monitoring was necessary because of the DOC’s lack of training and history of noncompliance with prior remedial orders, and emphasized that the ultimate goal was to enable the DOC to monitor its own compliance without continued court supervision. The DOC appealed the Phase 2A Remedial Order and several related interim orders, while the Plaintiffs cross-appealed on waiver issues. Shortly before oral argument, the DOC additionally argued that the Phase 2A Remedial Order was preliminary rather than permanent and therefore subject to the PLRA's 90-day limitation on preliminary prospective relief. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court properly ordered permanent prospective relief under the PLRA and the Eighth Amendment. The parties disputed whether the Eleventh Circuit could review additional orders through pendent appellate jurisdiction, including the Understaffing Order, Suicide-Prevention Order, and Monitoring Order. The DOC argued that the Court should exercise discretionary pendent jurisdiction over the Monitoring Order and that the other interim orders merged into the Phase 2A Omnibus Remedial Order. The Plaintiffs argued that these orders were not appealable because they were unnecessary to review the validity of the remedial order and the merger doctrine did not apply. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that it could properly exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the Liability and Monitoring Orders because they were sufficiently connected to the Phase 2A Remedial Order. However, it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Understaffing and Suicide-Prevention Orders because the DOC did not substantively challenge those orders in its merits briefing. The Court noted that the DOC's characterization of the orders as "non-final" injunctions was unclear but concluded that it did not need to resolve the issue because the DOC abandoned any merits challenge by failing to properly present arguments and authority on appeal. To the merits, the Eleventh Circuit then held that the district court properly found the DOC was deliberately indifferent to inmates' mental healthcare needs during the liability phase. It rejected the DOC's challenge to the system-wide scope of the Omnibus Remedial Order, finding that the district court identified system-wide deficiencies and could impose system-wide relief under Brown while complying with the PLRA. The Eleventh Circuit reversed only certain remedial provisions that applied to Tutwiler Prison for Women. It explained that The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Monitoring Order, holding that it satisfied the PLRA's need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirements. It explained that the broad scope of a remedy alone does not make it improper under the PLRA and that extensive measures may be necessary to address constitutional violations. It found external monitoring appropriate because the DOC admitted it lacked the ability to monitor its own compliance and had a history of failing to comply with interim remedial orders. The Eleventh Circuit also noted that the purpose of the external monitoring team was to train DOC staff and transition responsibility to an internal monitoring system, rather than replace DOC personnel. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Liability Order and Monitoring Order and upheld most of the Omnibus Remedial Opinion and Omnibus Remedies Order. It reversed only limited portions of the remedial relief and remanded the case for the district court to modify the injunction consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/Udwhg8zJj ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Denial in Hossfeld TCPA Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of ROBERT HOSSFELD, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Case Nos. 25-1518 & 25-1672 (7th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hossfeld's motion for class certification but reversed its summary judgment decision. Atlantic Telemarketing Center placed twelve calls to Robert Hossfeld promoting Allstate automobile insurance policies, despite Hossfeld having previously asked Allstate not to make marketing calls to his phone number. Hossfeld sued Allstate under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging Allstate was responsible for Atlantic's calls under agency principles and failed to honor his do-not-call request. He also sought class certification, claiming he represented individuals affected by Allstate's telemarketing practices. Allstate markets insurance policies nationwide through various methods, including telemarketing calls. The calls at issue resulted from a campaign started by Allstate insurance agents Jason Fleming and Daniel Gilmond, who were required under their contracts to comply with the TCPA and ensure their external providers followed applicable laws and policies. Allstate's do-not-call policy prohibited marketing calls to individuals who had requested not to be contacted unless there was express written consent. During the relevant period, Allstate allowed its agents to hire non-contracted telemarketers to promote Allstate products, provided they complied with Allstate's agency standards and do-not-call policy. In 2020, Allstate agents Fleming and Gilmond each hired a non-contracted telemarketer, Transfer Kings, to place calls to potential customers and transfer interested consumers to the agents. Transfer Kings subcontracted the calling work to Atlantic without informing the agents. Neither Allstate nor its agents knew Atlantic existed or was marketing Allstate products until after Hossfeld filed his lawsuit. From November 2020 to February 2021, Atlantic placed twelve calls to Hossfeld promoting Allstate products, despite Allstate's internal do-not-call list including Hossfeld's number since July 10, 2020. Allstate did not make, direct, or authorize the calls. Before making the calls, Atlantic obtained a list of potential customers from KP Leads, which represented that the listed individuals had consented to receive calls. The lead list purchased by Atlantic from KP Leads included Hossfeld's phone number, but it was linked to the names "Michael Johnson" and "Michael Bradley." Hossfeld had previously submitted online requests for auto insurance quotes using false names, which he said was part of his effort to investigate and stop telemarketing calls. During the calls at issue, he also used aliases. Atlantic eventually connected Hossfeld with Allstate agents Fleming and Gilmond, who provided insurance quotes, but Hossfeld never purchased an Allstate policy. Hossfeld sued Allstate under the TCPA, alleging that Allstate failed to maintain an adequate internal do-not-call policy and made marketing calls despite his request not to be contacted. He sought damages and an injunction against further violations. Hossfeld also sought class certification, but the district court denied the motion after finding he failed to show that the proposed class was large enough to make individual lawsuits impracticable. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in Hossfeld's favor, finding Allstate vicariously liable for Atlantic's TCPA violations. The court concluded that Allstate authorized its agents to hire Transfer Kings, which then hired Atlantic, making Atlantic's conduct attributable to Allstate through the chain of agency. The court also found the violations were willful and knowing, allowing for treble damages under the TCPA. Allstate appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling holding it liable, while Hossfeld cross-appealed the denial of class certification. Allstate challenged the finding that it was vicariously liable for Atlantic's willful TCPA violations and disputed liability under alternative agency theories. Hossfeld argued that the district court erred in finding his proposed class was not sufficiently numerous for certification. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification but reversed the summary judgment ruling, holding that Hossfeld failed to establish that Allstate was liable for Atlantic's calls under any theory of agency law. The Seventh Circuit held that Hossfeld failed to present evidence showing Allstate could be held vicariously liable for Atlantic's TCPA violations under any agency theory. It found that Transfer Kings lacked express or implied actual authority from Allstate to hire Atlantic as a subagent, and Hossfeld failed to show apparent authority because he did not reasonably rely on any representation that Atlantic acted on Allstate's behalf. It also rejected ratification, finding no evidence that Allstate's inaction amounted to approval of Atlantic's calls. The Seventh Circuit further held that treble damages under the TCPA require reckless or knowing conduct, not merely voluntary action, and found that Hossfeld failed to establish such willful violations by Allstate. Finally, it affirmed the denial of class certification, concluding that Hossfeld failed to demonstrate numerosity or show that the district court abused its discretion. It also declined to modify the class certification ruling because Rule 23 permits modification only by the district court before final judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/RGzEfN32g AMBASSADOR FISH: Claude Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Wislande Claude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMBASSADOR FISH AND CHICKEN, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-08032 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.ambassadorfishandchicken.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers, specifically in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Networld Inc. Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Networld, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL, Case No. CAM-L-001506-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on July 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08056. The Complaint asserts that American General failed to comply with New Jersey law enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, Executive Order No. 123 adopted by the Governor of New Jersey.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 Email: mleventhal@carltonfields.com - and - Michael D. Margulies, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 180 Park Avenue, Suite 106 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Phone: (973) 828-2600 Facsimile: (973) 828-2601 Email: mmargulies@carltonfields.com ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Harris Sues Over Unsecured Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY, LLC d/b/a ASSURANCE AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03718-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 2, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information entrusted to it, as well as its failure to fulfill its accompanying responsibility to properly store and transfer that information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. 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 failure to protect individuals' Private Information. 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, says the suit. AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC d/b/a Assurance America is an insurance holding company, which focuses on the non-standard automobile insurance markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 2222 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com AWOL VISION: Russo Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AWOL VISION TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05592-RA (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.awolvision.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. AWOL Vision Technology, LLC is a consumer electronics and home entertainment brand that specializes in manufacturing premium 4K ultra-short-throw (UST) laser projectors, projection screens, and smart home theater accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com AZ DWELLINGS: Banfield Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Call ----------------------------------------------------------- Kellie Banfield, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AZ Dwellings LLC d/b/a Az Buys Properties, Case No. 5:26-cv-04156-XR (W.D. Tex., July 1, 2026), is brought against under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), unsolicited advertisement or marketing telephone call. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by delivering more than one advertisement or marketing telephone call to residential telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without the prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. Additionally, Defendant routinely violates the TCPA of the TBCC, by delivering more than one advertisement or marketing telephone call to residential telephone numbers registered with the DNC Registry without the prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA, and separately by initiating telephone solicitations to Texas residents without the required valid telephone solicitation registration certificate from the Texas Secretary of State, says the complaint. The Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express invitation or permission to deliver advertisement or marketing text messages to her telephone number. The Defendant is a Texas limited liability company that runs a marketing and real estate business with its principal address in Garland, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq. Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (561) 726-8444 Fax: (877) 453-8003 Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com akruzyk@pkglegal.com BALLY'S CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Randolph Says --------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALLY'S CORPORATION; and BALLY'S INTERACTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00428-MRD-AEM (D.R.I., July 1, 2026) is an action against 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. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendants' inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. Bally's Corporation is a casino-entertainment company with a growing omni-channel presence of online sports betting and iGaming offerings. The Company owns and manages casinos, hotels and resorts, spa, and horse racetracks, as well as provides online gaming and sports betting solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. Law Offices Of Peter N. Wasylyk 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com BLUE SUNDAY: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE SUNDAY BAR & GRILL LINDEN, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:26-cv-08042 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.bluesundaybargrills.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Blue Sunday Bar & Grill Linden, LLC operates as an Asian-American restaurant, located in Linden, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CG BLACK FINANCIAL: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CG BLACK FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BLACK INSURANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES, a Florida corporation, Case No. 8:26-cv-01903 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2026), is brought against BFS for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. According to a data breach notification ("Breach Notice") sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, BFS learned that an unauthorized third party had gained access to two BFS employee e-mail accounts, beginning on March 21, 2025, and had accessed mail items within those accounts containing PII of individuals, including Plaintiff (the "Data Breach"). BFS required its individuals to provide sensitive PII and failed to protect that information. BFS had an obligation to secure individuals' PII by implementing reasonable and appropriate data security safeguards. This was part of the bargain between BFS and Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of BFS's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff's and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. Plaintiff and the Class are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of all kinds, especially considering the highly sensitive PII stolen here and the fact that the compromised PII is likely already being sold on the dark web. This risk constitutes a concrete injury suffered by Plaintiff and the Class as they no longer have control over their PII, which PII is now in the hands of third-party cybercriminals. This substantial and imminent risk of identity theft has been recognized by numerous courts as a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida, whose PII was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant BFS operates as an independent insurance agency, providing personal and commercial insurance services to clients throughout Florida and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 206-7896 Email: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com lblanco@brysonpllc.com CHOBANI LLC: Rabinowitz Balks at Deceptive Yogurt Labels -------------------------------------------------------- JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOBANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03990 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Chobani with the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its yogurt products, specifically the 32-ounce tubs of Chobani "20G Protein" yogurt, throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by displaying a prominent "20G Protein" per serving claim on its packaging that relies on an unlawfully inflated serving size. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a price premium for the products based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign including its false and misleading representations on the products' labels. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the products, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, says the suit. Accordingly, the Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law. The Defendant also breached and continues to breach its implied warranties regarding the products. During the relevant period, Plaintiff Rabinowitz purchased Defendant's 32-ounce Products in varying flavors. Over the past few years, the Plaintiff purchased these products at, among other places, a ShopRite retail location in Plainview, New York. Chobani, LLC produces dairy products. The Company offers yogurt, ice-creams, milk, milk powder, and other dairy products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 134 Mineola Boulevard, 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com COMFORT SYSTEM: Walton Prevailing Wage Claims Allowed ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, David Walton, & c. et al., Appellants, v. Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse), Inc., & c., Respondent, Case Case No. 53 (N.Y. App.), the Court of Appeals of New York answered two certified questions from the Second Circuit, holding that public works employees may enforce prevailing wage rights under Labor Law Section 220 through third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims even without an express contract provision, and that contractual provisions shortening the limitations period for such claims are unenforceable. The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs as technicians responsible for installing, maintaining, inspecting, testing, repairing, and replacing fire alarms, sprinklers, and security system equipment. The Defendant entered into fire alarm testing and inspection contracts with New York public works customers, which contained one-year limitations clauses. Some contracts stated that prevailing wage laws did not apply or required revised agreements if prevailing wages applied, while others were based on prevailing wage rates or were silent on prevailing wage requirements. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in federal court, alleging, among other claims, that they were third-party beneficiaries of the Defendant's contracts and were entitled to prevailing wages. The Defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the claims failed because the contracts did not provide for prevailing wages, were barred by the one-year contractual limitations period, and were not supported by Labor Law Section 220. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. It held that the Plaintiffs' third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims were barred by the contracts' one-year limitations periods and rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the limitations provisions violated public policy. The court alternatively found that the Plaintiffs could not enforce prevailing wage requirements because the contracts did not expressly promise payment of prevailing wages, and that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to prevailing wages under Labor Law Section 220. On appeal, the Second Circuit relied on Ramos v. SimplexGrinnell LP (24 NY3d 143 [2014]; see also NY St Dept of Labor Op No. RO-09-0180) and held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to prevailing wages because fire alarm testing and inspection work qualifies as "construction, maintenance, or repair work" under Labor Law Section 220. The court further held that the Defendant could not avoid the prevailing wage requirement through contract terms because parties cannot contract around statutory obligations. Because it could not predict how the New York Court of Appeals would resolve the remaining issues, the Second Circuit certified two questions for review: "(1) Is the promise to pay prevailing wages implicit in every public works contract so that individuals employed on public works projects may sue their employers for breach of contract to enforce the prevailing wage requirement under Labor Law Section 220 even if the employer's written contract does not include the statutorily required promise to pay prevailing wages? "(2) Are agreements to shorten the statute of limitations in public works contracts to one year enforceable against workers bringing third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce the prevailing wage law?" The New York Court of Appeals accepted two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding whether public works employees may bring third-party beneficiary breach of contract claims to enforce their right to prevailing wages under the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals held that whether a worker may bring a third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim depends on the requirements imposed by Labor Law Section 220, not the specific terms included by the parties in their written agreement. Because the statute requires every covered public works contract to include a prevailing wage obligation by operation of law, covered workers are third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce that promise. The Court explained that allowing parties to exclude this obligation through contract terms would undermine the purpose of Labor Law Section 220 and prevent workers from recovering wages required by statute. Therefore, the promise to pay prevailing wages is implied in every covered public works contract, and employees may enforce it as third-party beneficiaries. The Court of Appeals then held that one-year contractual limitations periods in public works contracts are not enforceable against workers bringing third-party beneficiary claims to recover prevailing wages under Labor Law Section 220. It explained that these claims arise from a statutory right created for workers' protection, and allowing contracting parties to shorten the time for bringing such claims without workers' agreement would conflict with the purpose of the statute. Therefore, parties cannot limit workers' ability to enforce prevailing wage rights through contractual limitation provisions. The Court of Appeals concluded that Labor Law Section 220 allows workers to bring third-party beneficiary claims to enforce prevailing wage rights regardless of whether the underlying contract expressly includes that obligation. It further held that contractual provisions shortening the limitations period for such claims are unenforceable because they conflict with the statutory and constitutional protections afforded to prevailing wages. The Court answered the Second Circuit's first certified question in the affirmative and the second certified question in the negative. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/eEqDth47d. Jason J. Rozger -- jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com -- for appellants. Jessica F. Pizzutelli -- jpizzutelli@littler.com -- for respondent. Alexandria Twinem -- alexandria.twinem@ag.ny.gov -- for amicus curiae New York State Department of Labor. City of New York, New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters et al., New York State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO et al., International Union of Elevator Constructors Local Union Number One, amici curiae. CREDIT PROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hughes Sr. Says ------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES HUGHES SR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80792-AMC (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2026) is an action against the Defendant as a result of a cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Defendant. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded; failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data; and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit. The Credit Pros International, LLC is a US-based financial technology and credit repair organization that provides credit restoration services, credit monitoring, and financial wellness education. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com DECKERS OUTDOOR: Norberg Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Norberg, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26CV03402 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07235. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a citizen of Iowa. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant paid tariffs on the import of goods pursuant to Executive Orders issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. Patrick Rubalcava, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Phone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Email: ccardon@sheppard.com jramsey@sheppard.com prubalcava@sheppard.com DSI SECURITY SERVICES: Hedger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DSI Security Services, et al. The case is styled as Jordan Hedger, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. DSI Security Services, Dothan Security, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE069169 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited - Other Employment." DSI Security Services -- https://www.dsisecurity.com/ -- offers Uniformed Security Guard Services and a Technology Solutions Division.[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 EATON CORPORATION: Manouselis Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Louisa Manouselis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EATON CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01572137-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01711. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserts the following 7 causes of action: Failure To Pay All Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Provide All Meal Periods; Failure To Authorize and Permit All Paid Rest Periods; Derivative Failure To Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Derivative Violations of California Labor Code §§ 201 202; and Unfair Business Practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 91 Red River Street, Suite 1150 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 362-7100 Facsimile: (512) 362-5574 Email: Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com - and - Alexander Spellman, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Alex.Spellman@jacksonlewis.com EQUIFAX INC: Clark Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No. 2026CV32051 was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02974-CYC. The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of a putative class, that Equifax violated Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 6-1-304, the "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act" ("PTFA"), by listing cellular telephone numbers in for-sale and for-profit directories without the individuals' consent to such listings.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5140 Email: zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com - and - Angela Tarasi, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1900 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 535-2300 Fax: (720) 535-2400 Email: atarasi@kslaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goyette Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS GOYETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01838 (M.D. Fla., June 24, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge William F. Jung, and referred to Magistrate Sean P. Flynn. Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Kanee, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1508 SW 23rd Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 Telephone: (848) 346-4358 Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com FASTENAL COMPANY: Hawkins-Brentt Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dani Hawkins-Brentt, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FASTENAL COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, and D0ES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-17542 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01129. The Plaintiff's Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Final Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com FASTENAL COMPANY: Ibarra Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Roy Ibarra, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FASTENAL COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV157137 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 July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06834. The Plaintiff's Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages; Failure to Reimburse For Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Timely Pay Wages At Termination; Private Attorneys General Act; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com FLORA FOOD US INC: Slowinski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christine Slowinski, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. FLORA FOOD US INC., Case No. 2026-CH-05140 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07796. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that Flora violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act ("ICFA"), by "intentionally labeling their Products as free from artificial preservatives, when they contain the preservative citric acid."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren J. Caisman, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 602-5079 Email: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com - and - Darci F. Madden, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 259-2000 Email: darci.madden@bclplaw.com FRESENIUS KABI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rossi Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN ROSSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS KABI USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07708 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2026) is an action seeking to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of private information that it collected and maintained, and the Defendant's failure to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access and disclosure. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect the private information with which it was entrusted. The Defendant maintained the private information in a reckless manner. In particular, the private information was maintained on Defendant's computer systems and networks in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the suit. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC is a global healthcare company. The Company specializes in lifesaving medicines and technologies for infusion, transfusion, and clinical nutrition. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com GC SERVICES: Molinar Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages ------------------------------------------------ Alma Molinar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a INTELOGIX, Case No. 2:26-cv-00612 (D. Utah, July 1, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law for unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its Representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This policy resulted in Representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and for regular hours in non-overtime workweeks. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate its Representatives for the substantial time they spent performing essential work tasks prior to clocking into and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system at the end of each shift, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt Representative from May 2017 until September 2025. The Defendant is a trusted global leader with nearly seven decades of experience in business process outsourcing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC HC 63 Box 8715 Duchesne, Utah 84021 Phone: 801-415-9909 Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com GENERAL MILLS: Most Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Most, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2026LA000735 was removed from the Circuit Court of Dupage County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07812. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the marketing and labeling of the Products are false and misleading because the Products are advertised as being "natural food for cats" and having "no artificial flavors or preservatives," when, according to Plaintiff, the Products contain chemical preservatives, which Plaintiff alleges are synthetic and not natural.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3804 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 Email: csipos@perkinscoie.com - and - Natalie K. Sanders, Esq. Micaela M. Snashall, ARDC 6339703 PERKINS COIE US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: +1.310.788.9900 Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399 Email: nsanders@perkinscoie.com msnashall@perkinscoie.com GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Improper Use of Rental Algorithm --------------------------------------------------------------- LOUIE GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-06836-TSH (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is an action seeking to prohibit the Defendants from using algorithmic devices to set rents or manage occupancy levels for residential dwelling units located in San Francisco. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant used software that performs calculations using non-public competitor data to adjust rental prices or how many units to rent. The Defendants are landlords who use algorithmic devices to set rents or occupancy levels for residential dwelling units in San Francisco in violation of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Greystar Management Services, L.P. provides real estate services. The Company offers property and investment management services such as senior living, housing solutions, portfolio and risk management services, and due diligence, as well as renders development and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com HALEON US: Faces Garland Suit Over Mislabeled Toothpaste Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA GARLAND, JORDAN NELSON, and KAREN CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HALEON US, INC., Defendant, Case 3:26-cv-03855-GPC-JAC (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) seeks to enjoin Haleon from deceptively marketing the Products and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant sells a variety of toothpastes under the Sensodyne and Parodontax brands, which it markets as delivering improved gum health and treatment of gingivitis (the "Products"). However, these representations are misleading because the Products contain sodium lauryl sulfate ("SLS"), a harsh detergent and known irritant that, at the levels present in the Products, can damage gum and mouth tissue, inhibit wound healing, trigger inflammation, cause allergic and contact-sensitivity reactions and epithelial sloughing, and disrupt the oral microbiome. These are the very conditions Haleon claims the Products prevent or reduce, says the suit. Haleon US Inc. manufactures healthcare and medical products. The Company offers mineral supplements, topical antifungal agents, systemic and topical analgesic, antacids, skin care, vaccines, contact lenses, and lens care products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com HEAT MEDIA: Hanson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEAT MEDIA, INC. d/b/a Puck, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03689 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used the website, www.puck.news an online news platform that Defendant operates and provides for public access and use. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was searching for and reading, the page titles identifying the subject matter of those pages, the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation paths, and persistent identifiers tying those communications to Plaintiff across browsing sessions. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices, did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being transmitted to the third parties operating the Trackers, and did not consent to the use or commercial exploitation of those contents by Defendant or by the third parties, says the suit. Heat Media, Inc., doing business as Puck, provides digital media solutions. The Company offers a subscription media platform that covers news related to power, money, and ego, focusing on the inside story devoid of rumors, enabling readers unprecedented access to elite journalists through offerings like articles, podcasts, newsletters, and conference calls. [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 Email: 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 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com IN RE PAYMENT: Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 16 ------------------------------------------------------ TO: All merchants in the U.S. who accepted Visa or Mastercard credit or debit cards at any time since December 18, 2020. This notice ("Notice") is authorized by the Court to inform you about an agreement to settle the equitable relief claims in a class action lawsuit, called In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-md-01720 (BMC)(JAM)(E.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit claims that Visa and Mastercard, separately, and together with certain banks, violated antitrust laws and caused merchants to pay excessive fees for accepting Visa and Mastercard credit and debit cards, including by adopting interchange rules and rates, and other network rules, which the lawsuit has claimed constituted unlawful price fixing, unreasonable restraints of trade, and monopolization. The defendants say they did nothing wrong. They maintain that their business practices are legal, justified, and the result of independent competition, and have benefitted both merchants and consumers. The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York has not decided who is right because the parties agreed to a settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 9, 2026. A. What Merchants Will Get from the Settlement During the lawsuit, the Court previously certified an Equitable Relief Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and has now preliminarily approved a settlement of the Class claims (the "Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement" or "Settlement"). Under the Settlement, Visa and Mastercard have agreed to substantive changes to the Visa and Mastercard rules applicable to merchants who accept their cards as a form of payment. The Class includes all persons, businesses, and entities that accept any Visa-Branded Cards and/or Mastercard-Branded Cards in the United States at any time during the period between December 18, 2020 and the date of preliminary settlement approval, or June 9, 2026. The Court has set November 16, 2026 as the date for a final approval and fairness hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") in connection with the Settlement, after members of the Class have had the opportunity to evaluate the Settlement and exercise their rights, as set forth in the Notice. Further information regarding the Settlement and the Fairness Hearing will be posted on www.InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com. Under the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement, Mastercard and Visa will modify certain rules to preserve, establish, or expand the circumstances in which merchants can, among other things, do the following: * Decline acceptance of Visa- or Mastercard-Branded Commercial Credit Cards and/or Premium Consumer Credit Cards. * Surcharge customers a fee for the use of any Visa or Mastercard-Branded Credit Cards, including based on the type of card used (e.g., a different surcharge for rewards and non-rewards cards). * Offer discounts to customers who do not pay with Visa or Mastercard-Branded Credit Cards, or based on the financial institution that issued the Visa or MastercardBranded Credit Card. * Decline acceptance of Visa or Mastercard-Branded Cards at all outlets that operate under the same trade name or banner, even if that merchant accepts those same cards at outlets that operate under a different trade name or banner. * Engage in Pilot Programs whereby they accept Visa or Mastercard-Branded Credit Cards at some but not all outlets operating under the same trade name or banner for a limited duration or test out various acceptance, surcharging and discounting options at some but not all outlets operating under the same trade name or banner, including not accepting Commercial or Premium Consumer Credit Cards, for a limited duration. * Accept some digital wallets at brick-and-mortar locations but decline others and enable some digital wallets for on-line transactions but not enable others, and "steer" among the cards within a digital wallet under the same rules that govern steering among traditional cards. * Receive the benefit of credit interchange rate reductions: Visa and Mastercard will reduce published and negotiated Credit Card interchange rates for U.S. merchants. * Receive the benefit of Credit Card interchange rate caps: The Settlement Agreement reduces and caps "Standard" Consumer Credit Card rates at a specified level and otherwise caps Credit Card interchange rates, such that neither Visa nor Mastercard will increase any of its published Credit Card interchange rates above the rates effective as of March 31, 2025 and each will reduce its network-wide average Credit Card interchange rate to or below the specified level. * Form Merchant Buying Groups that meet certain criteria to negotiate with Visa and Mastercard. * Receive access to a Merchant Education Program, established and administered under the Settlement Agreement, to help understand and maximize the benefits of the rule changes, including how to effectively "steer" in States that restrict surcharging. B. Monetary Aspects of the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement There is no monetary payment to members of the Class in this Settlement. This Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement concerns only the Equitable Relief Claims set forth in the lawsuit. Claims for monetary damages arising out of the defendants' alleged antitrust violations are the subject of a separate settlement for the Rule 23(b)(3) Class. For information concerning the separate Rule 23(b)(3) Cash Settlement Class, please visit the website: www.PaymentCardSettlement.com. The Settlement does provide for Visa and Mastercard to make certain payments into the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement Escrow Account, which money will be used to pay: * The cost of settlement administration and notice, as approved by the Court, * The cost of Merchant Education Program expenses, as approved by the Court, * The cost of an Independent Auditor who will ensure that Visa and Mastercard comply with the credit card interchange-rate reduction commitments, and * Attorneys' fees and expenses, including any named Class Representative service awards, as approved by the Court. The money in this fund will be distributed only if the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and the money for attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards to Class Representatives, will be distributed only if the Settlement has become final and all appeals are exhausted, and the Court approves the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and Class Representatives' service awards. Attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards to the Class Representatives: For work done through final approval of the Settlement by the Court, as well as any work they will be required to do in the future, Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of reasonable and necessary litigation expenses, and any service awards to the named Class Representatives that the Court may award, in an amount not to exceed $206,000,000. The Settlement Agreement requires Visa and Mastercard to pay these fees and expenses separately from the other Settlement financial obligations and they will not reduce any other benefits of the Settlement; members of the Class will not be required to pay any amount toward these fees and expenses. C. Legal Rights and Options Merchants who are included in this lawsuit have the legal right to Object to the Settlement. The deadline to object is: September 14, 2026. To learn how to object, visit: www.InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com or call toll-free: 877-318-7713. Note: You cannot elect to be excluded from the Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement. For more information about these rights and options, visit: www.InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com or call toll-free: 877-318-7713. D. If the Court Grants Final Approval of the Settlement If the Court grants final approval to the Settlement, members of the Rule 23(b)(2) Class will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and will release all claims against all released parties listed in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement will resolve and release any claims by payment card acceptors against Visa, Mastercard and other defendants that were or could have been alleged in the lawsuit, including any claims based on interchange or other fees, no-surcharge rules, no-discounting rules, honor-all-cards rules, and any other network rules. The Settlement will also resolve any payment card acceptor claims based upon the future effect of any Visa or Mastercard rules as they were or are in place on December 18, 2020 and up to the Settlement Final Date (as defined in the Settlement Agreement), the modified rules provided for in the Settlement, or any other rules substantially similar to those rules. The release will not bar claims involving certain specified standard commercial disputes arising in the ordinary course of business. For more information on the release, see the Superseding and Amended Rule 23(b)(2) Class Settlement Agreement at: www.InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com. E. The Court Hearing About This Settlement On November 16, 2026 at 11:00 am ET, the Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards for the named Class Representatives. The hearing will take place at: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 You do not have to attend the Court hearing or hire an attorney, though you may do either at your own expense. The Court appointed the law firms of Hilliard Shadowen LLP; Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; and Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. to represent the Class ("Class Counsel"). F. Questions? For more information about this case (In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720), you may: Call toll-free: 877-318-7713 Visit: www.InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com Write to the Class Administrator: Interchange B2 Class Administrator, P.O. Box 6340, Portland, OR 97228-6340 or Email the Class Administrator: info@InterchangeEquitableReliefSettlement.com INSULET CORP: Faces Hu Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ZHENJUN HU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSULET CORPORATION; ASHLEY A. MCEVOY; JAMES R. HOLLINGSHEAD; FLAVIA H. PEASE; ANA M. CHADWICK; ERIC BENJAMIN; and TRANG LY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-13062-LTS (D. Mass., July 2, 2026) is a federal securities class action 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 the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and 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 pose a risk of injury; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Insulet's stock price fell $7.79 per share, or 5.07 percent, to close at $146.01 per share on May 27, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Insulet Corporation operates as a medical device company. The Company develops, manufactures, and markets an insulin infusion system for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryl Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 Telephone: (410) 862-1259 Email: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com glen@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gueits Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LEANNE GUEITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKPOCKET INTERACTIVE GAMING LLC d/b/a JACKPOCKET CASINO, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07587 (D.N.J., June 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of its customers and/or employees. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to the 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 breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its customers' and/or employees' PII from 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 postbreach, says the suit. Jackpocket Interactive Gaming LLC d/b/a Jackpocket Casino provides lottery and gaming services. The Company operates licensed lottery retail operations, advocates for responsible gaming, and enables mobile lottery ticket purchasing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com KNOWBE4 INC: Clair Appeals Court Order to the Sup. Ct. of Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ BILL LE CLAIR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Bill Le Clair, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Knowbe4, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2024-1143-KSJM, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The appellate case is styled as Bill Le Clair, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Knowbe4, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-260, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on June 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BILL LE CLAIR, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. Christopher Windover, Esq. Lindsay La Marca, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Douglas E. Julie, Esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 E. 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (929) 415-1020 Defendants-Appellees KNOWBE4, INC., et al. are represented by: Elena C. Norman, Esq. Y. Carson Zhou, Esq. Skyler A. C. Speed, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 - and - Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Kevin M. Kidwell, Esq. Benjamin O. Allen, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - T. Brad Davey, Esq. J. Matthew Belger, Esq. Nina N. Monzack, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 N. Market Street Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6000 - and - David E. Ross, Esq. Kevin A. Rudolph, Esq. ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP Hercules Building 1313 North Market Street, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 576-1600 MARY JANE: Swagerty Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ RITCHIE SWAGERTY is taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Daniel VanderKodde, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, PC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00203, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged consumer credit violations. On Mar. 31, 2023, Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Apr. 27, 2023, Judge Maloney entered an Amended Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Maloney denied on Feb. 29, 2024. The appellate case is styled as Daniel VanderKodde, et al. v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, PC, et al., Case No. 26-1564, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RITCHIE SWAGERTY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Theodore James Westbrook, Esq. WESTBROOK LAW 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 205 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 288-9548 Defendants-Appellees MARY JANE M. ELLIOTT, PC, et al. are represented by: Michael J. Cook, Esq. COLLINS EINHORN FARRELL 4000 Town Center, Ninth Floor Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 355-4141 - and - Nabil Gallo Foster, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1205 Evanston, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 767-5750 - and - David M. Schultz, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3527 - and - Andrew P. Hussey, Esq. DYKEMA 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 374-9100 MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Monninger Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIE MONNINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCADIEN P.C., CPAS, and ORRSTOWN BANK. Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-08122-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., July 2, 2026) is a class action for damages against Mercadien for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding Plaintiff and other clients' sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security Numbers or individual Tax Identification Numbers, account numbers, and government identification numbers such as driver license numbers or passport numbers. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of customers who had their personal identifying information stolen by unauthorized third parties because of a lapse in the security of Mercadien's computer network, which occurred, on information and belief, between September 17, 2025 and October 9, 2025. The Plaintiff was not notified of the data breach until late June of 2026, approximately eight months after her information was first accessed. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members will experience various types of misuse of their PII in the coming years, including but not limited to unauthorized credit card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, and other fraudulent use of their financial information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, violations of the Pennsylvania consumer protection statute, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Mercadien is an accounting firm that offers professional financial services to businesses and financial institutions. Orrstown contracts with Mercadien for such services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER, GRAIFMAN, PERLMUTTER & CARBALLO, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com METRO WEST: Faces Reign Wage-and-Hour Suit in Oregon ---------------------------------------------------- AMAZING REIGN, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METRO WEST AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., and MEDIX AMBULANCE SERVICE INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01350-JR (D. Ore., July 2, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Washington Industrial Welfare Act and related Washington Department of Labor & Industries regulations and/or Oregon Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Reign and the other employees by the hour. But Defendants do not pay them for all hours worked. Instead, the Defendants automatically round Plaintiff Reign's and the other hourly employees' clock in and clock out times to the nearest quarter hour. Additionally, Plaintiff Reign and the other hourly employees regularly do not receive and are unable to take compliant, bona fide meal periods, asserts the complaint. And Defendants do not compensate them for missed or otherwise non-compliant "meal periods." Instead, the Defendants require the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees to remain on duty and perform their regular job duties throughout their shifts and/or subject them to interruptions during any attempted "rest periods." Finally, the Defendants also fail to pay Plaintiff Reign and the other Hourly Employees overtime at the required rates, says the suit. Plaintiff Reign was employed by the Defendants as an EMT and paramedic in Oregon and Washington from November 2020 until September 2025. Metro West Ambulance Service, Inc. provides emergency medical services across the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Sullivan, Esq. BUCHANAN ANGELI SULLIVAN & FERRER LLP 621 Southwest Morrison Street, Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 974-5015 Facsimile: (971) 230-0337 E-mail: dana@basf.law - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com METRO WEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- TREY GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METRO WEST AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.; and HMW SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BAY CITIES AMBULANCE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01348-SB (D. Or., July 2, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Gonzales was employed by the Defendants as an emergency medical technician. Metro West Ambulance Service, Inc. provides ambulance services. The Company offers life support and medical transportation, wheelchair van, non-emergency, emergency, mobile intensive care, and satellite operation services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Sullivan, Esq. BUCHANAN ANGELI SULLIVAN & FERRER LLP 621 Southwest Morrison Street, Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 974-5015 Facsimile: (971) 230-0337 Email: dana@basf.law - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MOSSY AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ropero Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR ROPERO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOSSY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LEMON GROVE, INC., dba Mossy Honda Lemon Grove, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03824-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Mossy Automotive Group Lemon Grove, Inc. is a new and used car dealership located in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Katherine A. Tuohy, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Katherine@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. Harrison J. Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com PATTERN BRANDS: Faces Wise Suit for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------- MAXWELL WISE, Plaintiff v. PATTERN BRANDS, LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a WWW.SHOPMIRACLEBRAND.CO Defendant, Case No. 26ST CV21115 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant and its affiliate marketing partners bombard Californians with spam disguised as official communication using "Amazon Prime Day" and "Urban Outfitter" branding as bait. The illegal spam misdirects recipients to Defendant's website, where Defendant secretly installs tracking pixels on each visitor's device to surveil and profit from their journey across the Internet. The Defendant's misconduct is especially reprehensible because it exploits consumers through a multi-step scheme of deception. First, the unsolicited commercial e-mail falsely purports to be joint communication from Amazon.com and Urban Outfitters, creating the impression that recipients are being offered exclusive deals from trusted brands. Second, when recipients click the link embedded in the e-mail, they are routed through affiliate tracking infrastructure that records the source of the click before delivering them to a website that sells Defendant's products -- and that has no connection to either Amazon.com or Urban Outfitters. Third, Defendant installs tracking pixels on each visitor's device. Both the spam and the secret surveillance are blatantly illegal, says the suit. Pattern Brands, LLC operates as a direct-to-consumer brand platform in the consumer brands industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictiialattorneys.com PERSONAL ASSISTANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES OF COLORADO, INC.; JEFFREY DAIGNAULT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02840 (D. Colo., June 24, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gonzales was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver. Personal Assistance Services of Colorado, Inc. is an in-home family caregiving, providing knowledge, support, advocacy, and caregiving options to families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 Email: aswan@lstt.law PETER DE PAOLA: "Jaeger" ERISA Class Action Administratively Closed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order administratively closing the case captioned as BRYAN JAEGER, Plaintiff, -v- PETER DE PAOLA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11079-JAV (S.D.N.Y.). This is an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq., in which Plaintiff Bryan Jaeger, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, asserts claims of, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty including the imprudent investment of pension plan assets. All the claims alleged in this complaint seek relief on behalf of the DePaola Trading, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan ("Profit Sharing Plan" or "Plan") pursuant to ERISA Secs. 409(a) and 502(a)(2)1, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2). Named Plaintiff Bryan Jaeger ("Plaintiff") is a natural person and a former employee of Defendant De Paola Trading, Inc. He is a participant in the Plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(7), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(7). Defendant De Paola Trading, Inc. (the "Company") is a broker-dealer incorporated in the state of New York the principal business of which is buying and selling securities on behalf of its customers. The Company is also the Plan Sponsor of the Profit Sharing Plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(16)(B), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(16)(B). The Company is named in the Plan as its Plan Administrator. Plan, Art. 2, p. 7.2 As such, the Company is the Plan Administrator of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(16)(A), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(16)(A), and a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21)(A). Defendant Peter De Paola ("De Paola") is a natural person who is the president and chief executive officer of the Company. Upon information and belief, De Paola is the sole shareholder of the Company. De Paola is also the Trustee of the Plan, Plan, Art. 2, p. 11, the Investment Fiduciary of the Plan, id., p. 6 and section 12.02(a), and, upon information and belief, performs the functions of the Plan Administrator on behalf of the Company; for each of these three reasons De Paola is a fiduciary of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(21)(A). The DePaola Trading, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan is an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(3), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(3), an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(2), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(2), and a defined contribution plan (a/k/a an individual account plan) within the meaning of ERISA Sec. 3(34), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(34). Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) or (b)(2) on behalf of the following class: (1) All persons who are currently employed by De Paola Trading, Inc. and have account balances in the DePaola Trading, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, other than Peter De Paola and (2) all persons formerly employed by De Paola Trading, Inc. who were totally or partially vested in their DePaola Trading, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan account balances at the time their employment with DePaola Trading, Inc. terminated, whether or not such formerly employed persons have received a distribution from the DePaola Trading, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan. The Plan has substantially underperformed each of the compared Vanguard funds, underperforming even the most conservative of them by more than 50%. The Complaint alleges: (i) Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to diversify the Plan's investments appropriate; (ii) Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to invest the Plan's assets prudently; (iii) Defendants have engaged in prohibited transactions; (iv) Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by requiring the Plan to pay expenses; and (v) Defendants' fiduciary breaches and engaging in prohibited transactions have each damaged the Plan and caused it monetary losses. Bankruptcy On August 3, 2023, a Suggestion of Bankruptcy was filed in this case, advising that on July 26, 2023, Defendant Peter De Paola had filed a voluntary petition for relief pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Court thereafter ordered that, pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, this matter was stayed. The parties submitted a status report on July 6, 2026, in which they represented that Plaintiff has liquidated his claims against the Debtor's bankruptcy estate, and that the bankruptcy case is still being administered. They indicated that this case will likely become moot once the administrative process is complete. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to administratively close this case subject to the right of either party to reopen within 21 days of the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings, or the lifting or modification of the automatic stay as applied to this action. A copy of the Complaint is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QpZMm4 from Pacermonitor.com. A copy of the Court's Order dated July 7, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkdbFL from Pacermonitor.com. Peter De Paola sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-42634) on July 26, 2023. PLASTIC SURGERY: Claude Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIC SURGERY ARTS OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08031 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, www.plasticsurgeryartsofnewjersey.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plastic Surgery Arts of New Jersey is a medical group practice located in New Brunswick, NJ, specializing in plastic surgery for the breast, body, and face. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Oliver Sues Over Deceptive Toothpaste Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- SHERRIE OLIVER and MICHAEL TESTONE, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03859-JO-BJW (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is an action against P&G on behalf of the Plaintiffs, similarly situated Class Members, and the general public to enjoin P&G from deceptively marketing toothpastes under the Crest Pro-Health brand and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. P&G sells a variety of toothpastes under the Crest Pro-Health brand, which it markets as delivering improved gum health and treatment of gingivitis. The complaint alleges that these representations are misleading because the products contain sodium lauryl sulfate, a harsh detergent and known irritant that, at the levels present in the products, can damage gum and mouth tissue, inhibit wound healing, trigger inflammation, cause allergic and contact-sensitivity reactions and epithelial sloughing, and disrupt the oral microbiome. These are the very conditions P&G claims the products prevent or reduce, says the suit. The Procter & Gamble Co. is a manufacturer and marketer of fast-moving consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com RICCIARDI BROTHERS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICCIARDI BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08034 (D.N.J., July 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.ricciardibrothers.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ricciardi Brothers Inc provides decorating services. The Company offers wall coverings, window treatments, paints, and varnishes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SALEM, NJ: Final Approval of Dana Class Settlement Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANA CLARK STEVENSON, Plaintiff, and MARK HENDRICKS, KENNETH FUQUA and DARIUS SNEAD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and THE CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THE COUNTY OF SALEM, JOHN S. CUZZUPE, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Respondents, Docket No. A-2323-23 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court's final order approving a class action settlement, decertifying two of four certified classes, dismissing the claims of the decertified classes, and authorizing counsel fees. Former inmates at the Salem County Correctional Facility alleged that officials improperly placed them in an "at-risk" unit for individuals considered dangerous to themselves or others, resulting in unlawful strip searches. They sued Salem County and the facility's warden, John Cuzzupe, for civil rights and state law violations. The parties conducted extensive factual and expert discovery, including depositions, document and video exchanges, and a site visit to the facility. In 2020, the court certified four classes: Class 1A: Non-indictable detainees classified as at-risk who were strip-searched based on their identification as at-risk inmates and absent reasonable suspicion in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:161A-1(c). Class period commences on April 6, 2015. Class 2: Detainees admitted to the at-risk unit and strip-searched 2-3 times per day despite being in a 24/7 lock-down unit. Class period commences on April 6, 2015. Class 3: Detainees who were strip-searched in the view of others in a group strip search. Class period commences April 6, 2015. Class 4: Detainees who were strip-searched in their cells in the at-risk unit while being videotaped and observed by a person not authorized to view the search. Class period commences April 6, 2015. The court named Stevenson and Snead representatives for the first class, Fuqua and Snead for class two, Hendricks and Fuqua for class three, and Stevenson, Fuqua, and Snead for class four. It appointed Poplar and Riback as the class counsel and later granted the Plaintiffs' motion to add Stephen Barry as well. The court did not order notice of certification to class members. On October 7, 2020, the parties informed the court that they agreed to participate in mediation on November 24, 2020. One week later, the Defendants moved to decertify classes two and four. On November 25, 2020, Barry informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement and would seek court approval. On October 4, 2021, Barry, on behalf of the class plaintiffs, moved for preliminary approval of the settlement and attached the executed term sheet and stipulation of decertification. Riback submitted certifications from class representatives Hendricks and Snead opposing the settlement, arguing that it provided inadequate compensation and improperly decertified classes two and four. During oral argument on the motion for preliminary approval, Poplar and Barry argued that the settlement was fair and reasonable and explained that they agreed to decertify classes two and four after assessing the legal and evidentiary weaknesses of those claims. Riback opposed the settlement, arguing that counsel was inadequate, class members were insufficiently compensated, and decertifying classes two and four was unfair because those claims could succeed at trial. On March 25, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement after analyzing the nine Girsh factors used to evaluate class action settlements. It found that the factors supported preliminary approval and directed the parties to provide formal notice of the settlement terms to members of classes one and three. The court noted that final approval would be determined at a later hearing. The objectors later moved for reconsideration of the preliminary approval order and sought to disqualify Poplar and Barry as class counsel. In May 2022, the court denied the motion, finding that the objectors were merely rearguing issues the court had already fully addressed in its prior written decision. In June 2022, the court denied Riback's motion to disqualify Poplar and Barry as class counsel. It acknowledged that the relationship among class counsel had "soured" and scheduled a conference to address how counsel could continue representing the classes' interests. The Superior Court later denied Riback's motions for leave to appeal the preliminary settlement approval and the denial of his disqualification motion. On February 8, 2024, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. After analyzing the Girsh factors, the court found the agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 4:32-2(e)(1)(C). It determined that members of classes one and three received a material benefit through monetary compensation and rejected the argument that the settlement primarily benefited counsel. After reviewing the hours spent on the litigation and the proposed $375,000 attorney fee award, the court found the fees were reasonable and not a windfall for attorneys. On February 22, 2024, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation decertifying classes two and four and dismissing the Plaintiffs' individual claims. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenged the approval of the class settlement and the adequacy of class counsel. They argued that the settlement was unenforceable because it contained a restrictive covenant violating RPC 5.6(b), that the court improperly decertified and dismissed classes two and four without notice to absent class members, and that the $375,000 attorney fee award suggested self-dealing because it exceeded the class payout of $127,125. The Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the parties' executed Joint Stipulation when granting final settlement approval. It noted that all counsel had agreed to decertify classes two and four after discovery showed limited evidentiary support for those claims. Because the Plaintiffs presented no evidence contradicting those findings and putative class members retained the ability to pursue claims against the Defendants for alleged illegal practices, the decertification of classes two and four was proper. The Superior Court further held that the decertification of classes two and four did not prejudice absent class members because they had never been notified of the class certification order or their inclusion in the action. As a result, they could not have relied on their participation in the case, and the lack of notice regarding decertification did not harm their rights. The Superior Court also found no evidence that the settlement depended on including the restrictive covenant. It noted that class counsel did not agree to reduced class compensation or increased attorney fees in exchange for the provision. Because the restrictive covenant was not central to the settlement and did not permeate the agreement, it did not warrant invalidating the entire settlement. The Superior Court declined to disturb the attorney fee award approved by the trial court. It found the award reasonable based on the significant hours spent by experienced counsel and the low effective hourly rate compared to their usual rates. It concluded that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding class counsel fees. Finally, the Superior Court held that there was no prejudice arising from Riback's prior role as class counsel because he now represented the objectors and the Plaintiffs did not raise traditional disqualification arguments. It treated the adequacy-of-counsel arguments as challenges to the fairness of the settlement itself. Having found the settlement was properly approved, the Superior Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to show that class counsel negotiated an unfair agreement or that the trial court erred in approving it. For these reasons, the Superior Court affirmed the class settlement final approval, decertification of two classes, dismissal of their claims, and award of counsel fees. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/sHtMeQRs1. William Riback -- william.riback132@gmail.com -- (The Riback Law Firm, LLC) argued the cause for appellants. Stephen W. Barry -- sbarry@barryrome.com -- argued the cause for respondent The Class of Similarly Situated (Carl D. Poplar and Barry Corrado & Grassi, PC, attorneys; Stephen W. Barry and Carl D. Poplar, on the brief). Brian H. Leinhauser -- bleinhauser@macmainlaw.com -- argued the cause for respondents County of Salem and John S. Cuzzupe -- John.Cuzzupe@salemcountynj.gov -- (Brian H. Leinhauser (MacMain Leinhauser, PC) and Matthew S. Polaha -- mpolaha@macmainlaw.com -- (MacMain Leinhauser, PC), attorneys; Brian H. Leinhauser and Matthew S. Polaha, on the brief). SEA MAR: Removes Gillum Class Suit From State Court to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DAVID GILLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEA MAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-00002-17912-3 SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 24, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02196. The case is assigned to Judge Tana Lin. Sea Mar Community Health Centers provides a broad range of primary medical, dental, preventive, human and social services to individuals experiencing homelessness in most of our sites. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall T. Thomsen, Esq. Shane P. Cramer, Esq. Elisabeth Read, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 600-6650 Email: randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com shane.cramer@bclplaw.com elisabeth.read@bclplaw.com ST. LOUIS, MO: Prohibition Writ Bars Roberts Claim Against City --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, made permanent it's preliminary writ of prohibition in the case, STATE EX REL. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Relator, v. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH P. WHYTE, Respondent, Case No. SC101315 (Mo.), barring the circuit court from taking any further action other than to vacate its order overruling the City's motion to dismiss and to dismiss Christy Roberts' claim with prejudice. Before 2010, the City funded residential solid waste collection through its general revenue and did not charge residents. In 2010, it adopted Ordinance 68698, establishing a monthly $11 solid waste collection fee per dwelling unit. Ordinance 68698 stated that the fee was necessary to protect public health by funding solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling services. In 2017, Ordinance 70579 increased the monthly fee to $14 per dwelling unit, which is billed through residents' water bills. Although the ordinance defined solid waste services to include recycling, the City did not separately collect recyclables when the fee was first adopted in 2010. In 2011, the City launched a residential recycling and yard waste program and began separately collecting those materials. However, operational challenges sometimes required recyclables, yard waste, and trash to be collected together and sent to landfills. On August 15, 2025, after years of difficulties, the City announced that it was ending the recycling and yard waste program. Roberts filed a putative class action alleging the City improperly charged residents for recycling and yard waste services it failed to provide. After abandoning breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, she pursued a single claim for money had and received, alleging the City was authorized to charge only for services actually provided and unjustly retained fees paid by residents who believed their recyclables and yard waste were being separately collected and properly processed. On behalf of herself and a putative class of City residents, Roberts sought to recover all or part of the monthly solid waste service fees paid since 2011. The City moved to dismiss, arguing section 432.070 barred Roberts' claim for money had and received. After the circuit court denied the motion and the court of appeals denied the City's writ petition, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued a preliminary writ of prohibition. The City sought to make the writ permanent, asserting that Roberts’ claim was barred by sovereign immunity and section 432.070. The Supreme Court agreed with the City, holding that Roberts' claim was barred by sovereign immunity. It explained that equitable claims for money against the government, including claims for money had and received, are barred unless the legislature has clearly authorized the suit or another recognized exception applies. The Court found Roberts failed to identify any applicable exception in her petition and further held that section 432.070 reflects the legislature's intent to immunize municipalities from claims based on contracts that do not satisfy the statute's requirements, rendering such contracts void. For these reasons, the Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, barring Roberts; claim from proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/B25ZVkwhq STS OPERATING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Shahid Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ BILAL SHAHID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STS OPERATING, INC. d/b/a SUNSOURCE, and SUNSOURCE BORROWER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-07787 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On April 30, 2026, the Defendants experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious cybercriminal group, "PayoutsKing," has claimed responsibility for the data breach. The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members, hence, seek to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. The Defendants are an Illinois-based industrial distributor and solutions provider for North America's industrial and high-tech operators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 323-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Miles A. McDowell, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Bar Date Set for Aug. 16 --------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20883 In the Matter of Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20884 In the Matter of Clayton "Charlie" Thomas, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20885 In the Matter of Marc Bandini, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20886 In the Matter of Daniel Ives, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20887 In the Matter of John Murdock, Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3‑20889 In the Matter of Ronald Prague, Esq. Respondent. PLAN NOTICE OF SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES FAIR FUND TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who purchased or acquired Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., common stock during the period between February 6, 2014, and May 9, 2018, inclusive, ("Relevant Period"). If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed Claim Form with the necessary documentation so that it is postmarked (if mailed) by August 13, 2026, or submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2026 (the "Claims Bar Date"), to be considered for eligibility to receive a Distribution Payment from the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund. Purpose of this Plan Notice The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the Distribution Plan (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together with this Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary Claimants who are identified as Preliminary Claimants by the Commission‑appointed Fund Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq"). Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are available on the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund website at synchronosstechnologiesfairfund.com and through the Commission's website at SEC.gov | Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., et al. Certain persons are excluded from eligibility under the Plan. PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. Background On June 7, 2022, the Commission issued the Orders instituting and simultaneously settling proceedings against the Respondents. In the Orders, the Commission found that Synchronoss, a New Jersey‑based technology company that primarily provides products, software, and services to telecommunications companies, together with several senior executives and employees engaged in improper accounting practices from at least 2013 through 2017. In July 2018, Synchronoss announced a restatement of its audited financial data for the fiscal years ended in 2014 and 2013 totaling approximately $190 million in cumulative revenues. As part of this announcement, Synchronoss restated revenues related to certain transactions for which Synchronoss had recognized revenue improperly and in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). The restatement primarily related to three categories of transactions, for which Synchronoss improperly recognized revenue: (a) transactions for which there was not persuasive evidence of an arrangement; (b) acquisitions/divestitures in which Synchronoss recognized revenue on license agreement(s) instead of combining those purported amounts with the purchase or sales prices; and (3) license/hosting transactions, in which Synchronoss converted prior multi‑term software‑as‑a‑service ("SaaS") agreements into perpetual license agreements, and improperly recognized the revenue upfront, instead of recognizing it ratably over the term of the arrangements. In its restatement, Synchronoss also acknowledged "pervasive material weaknesses" in its internal control over financial reporting for the restatement period. These certain instances of Synchronoss' improper accounting were the result of misconduct by Synchronoss' senior executives and other employees. As a result of this misconduct, Synchronoss filed with the Commission materially misstated financial statements in its annual, quarterly and current reports during the restatement period. In their respective Orders, the Commission ordered Synchronoss to pay $12,500,000.00, Thomas to pay $90,000.00, Bandini to pay $75,000.00, Ives to pay $15,000.00, Murdock to pay $15,000.00 and Prague to pay $25,000.00 for a collective total of $12,720,000.00 in civil money penalties to the Commission. In each of the Orders, the Commission created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties collected can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"), and further ordered that the Fair Fund may be added to or combined with any other Fair Fund created in a related district court action or administrative proceeding arising out of the same violations. Respondents have paid in full. In accordance with the Orders, the $12,720,000.00 collected from the Respondents has been combined (collectively, the "Fair Fund") and deposited in a Commission‑designated account at the U.S Department of Treasury (the "Treasury"). Any accrued interest will be added to the Fair Fund. Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology To qualify for a payment from the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund, you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website at SynchronossTechnologiesFairFund.com and on the Commission's public website at SEC.gov | Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., et al. You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund Administrator at 1‑888‑817‑5548 or by emailing info@synchronosstechnologiesfairfund.com. The eligibility criteria include the following: * You must have purchased or acquired the Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., common stock during the Relevant Period. * Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal or exceed $25.00. Claim Forms THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM IS AUGUST 13, 2026 — ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE "CLAIMS BAR DATE." PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A POSTMARK DEADLINE IF SUBMITTED BY U.S. MAIL, AND A RECEIVED DEADLINE IF SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY BY 11:59 P.M EASTERN TIME. IF YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM THAT IS POSTMARKED (IF MAILED) OR SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY BY 11:59 P.M. EASTERN TIME ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 13, 2026, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES FAIR FUND. THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PART III OF THE CLAIM FORM. Claim Determinations The Fund Administrator will send a Claim Status Notice within 45 days of the Claims Bar Date to any Preliminary Claimants who submitted a deficient Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will provide the reason(s) for the deficiency and, in the event the claim is denied, the Claim Status Notice will state the reason(s) for such denial. The Claim Status Notice will also notify the Preliminary Claimant of the opportunity to cure any deficiency, request reconsideration, or dispute the determination made by the Fund Administrator and provide instructions regarding what is required to do so. Within 120 days of the Claims Bar Date, the Fund Administrator will complete all claims determinations and send a Determination Notice to all Preliminary Claimants who timely submitted a Claim Form notifying the Preliminary Claimant of its eligibility determination. The Determination Notice will constitute the Fund Administrator's final ruling regarding the eligibility status of the claim. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of the recognized loss calculation pursuant to the procedures outlined in the approved Distribution Plan. Instructions for Submitting a Claim Form Claim Forms may be submitted (i) by U.S. Mail, or (ii) by electronic submission through the online claims portal, as set forth below. U.S. Mail: Claim Forms submitted by U.S. Mail must be postmarked on or before August 13, 2026 (the "Claims Bar Date"). Claim Forms should be mailed to: Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund Fund Administrator PO Box 2298 Portland, OR 97208‑2298 A Claim Form that is not postmarked on or before the Claims Bar Date shall be deemed untimely and shall bar the claimant from receiving a distribution from the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund. Electronic Submission: Claim Forms may be submitted electronically through the claims portal located at www.SynchronossTechnologiesFairFund.com. Electronic submissions must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2026. IMPORTANT: You must complete and sign the Claim Form and submit it so that it is received (if filed electronically) no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2026, or postmarked (if sent by U.S. Mail) no later than August 13, 2026, in order to be considered for eligibility to receive a distribution from the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund. Additional Information Additional information regarding the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund may be found at synchronosstechnologiesfairfund.com. Additional Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional information or request copies of Claim Forms and Plan Notices by calling the Synchronoss Technologies Fair Fund's toll‑free number at 1‑888‑817‑5548, or by emailing info@synchronosstechnologiesfairfund.com. PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE SYNCHRONOSSTECHNOLOGIESFAIRFUND.COM FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES. TARTER KRINSKY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Geiger Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- STARR GEIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05667 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP operates as a law firm. The Firm provides services in the areas of real estate, construction, corporate and securities, investigations, litigation, labor and employment, health care and pharmacy law, intellectual property, trusts and estates, elder law, special needs, tax, retail, bankruptcy and corporate restructuring, and commercial finance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com TOWER ADMINSTRATIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shetley Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BROCK SHETLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWER ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04567 (E.D. Pa., July 1, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect its customers' private information, says the suit. Tower Administrative Services, Inc. administers payment of insurance premiums and provides customer service for 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 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com TRANSCORE LP: Penning Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- STACY "ED" PENNING, LILIANA ROSALES, and CARE JO VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSCORE, LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00920 (M.D. Tenn., July 2, 2026) is a class action against TransCore for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information, vehicle movement and location data, toll account data, and payment card information. According to the complaint, TransCore failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain private information when its systems were compromised in a data breach on June 28, 2026, that exposed the private information of toll-road users across the United States. For this reason, the Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring TransCore to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the unauthorized disclosure in the future. TransCore, LP is a global leader in transportation technology, providing all-electronic tolling, congestion pricing, tolling back-office systems, access control, and intelligent transportation systems.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell W. Lewis, IV, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP 1019 16th Ave. S. Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 200-1122 Facsimile: (866) 902-8647 E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com - and - Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 499-1476 E-mail: panderson@baileyglasser.com UNION ELECTRIC: Judgment Dismissing Buck Without Prejudice Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRYAN BUCK, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, D/B/A AMEREN MISSOURI, AND AMEREN CORPORATION, Respondents, Case No. ED113772 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing Buck's action without prejudice. The appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by Buck individually and on behalf of similarly situated current and former Ameren Missouri customers against Union Electrin, doing business as Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Corporation. Buck appealed the trial court's dismissal of his action without prejudice. On March 10, 2025, Buck filed a class action petition against Ameren alleging breach of contract, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Buck claimed Ameren improperly charged customers a rate above the amount approved by the Public Service Commission, alleging customers were overcharged by $0.14 because Ameren billed a $9.14 monthly customer charge instead of the approved $9.00 rate. On April 21, 2025, Ameren moved to dismiss Buck's petition or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Ameren argued that Buck's claims fell within the Public Service Commission (PSCA)'s primary jurisdiction and that he was required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing the claims in court. Buck opposed the motion. The trial court held a hearing on Ameren's motion on May 21, 2025. During the hearing, Ameren withdrew its arbitration argument, and the court considered only the motion to dismiss. On July 31, 2025, the trial court granted Ameren's motion under the primary jurisdiction doctrine and dismissed Buck's petition without prejudice. The court later designated the order as a judgment on November 21, 2025. Buck appealed, raising four points. He argued the trial court erred in applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine to his breach of contract, MMPA, and negligence claims because those claims did not fall within the PSC's authority. He also argued the court erred in finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies, asserting that doing so would be futile and that administrative remedies did not apply to his claims. The Court of Appeals rejected Buck's first two arguments, holding that his claims involved an issue within the PSC's primary jurisdiction: determining the lawful rate Ameren may charge customers. The Court found that Buck's claims attempted to bypass the PSC's authority to review rate-related issues first. Because the PSC has the authority to determine whether a violation occurred before any court considers a remedy, the trial court properly dismissed Buck's case without prejudice. Because the petition was properly dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, the Court of Appeals found Buck's remaining arguments regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies moot. Hence, it affirmed the trial court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/tFOkJVKvC UNITED AIRLINES: Files Writ of Certiorari Extension to Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED AIRLINES, INC. filed a request to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 9, 2026 to August 7, 2026, with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-1438, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in the case captioned Genise Kincannon, et al. vs. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 24-10708. Defendant-Petitioner UNITED AIRLINES, INC. is represented by: Noel John Francisco, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Email: njfrancisco@jonesday.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Doe Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Noor Doe, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-2103, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs bring this class action to challenge the Defendants' unlawful decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Yemeni nationals, effective May 4, 2026, stripping approximately 2,810 Yemeni TPS holders of their work authorization and protection from deportation, and foreclosing any meaningful opportunity for 425 additional applicants to have their pending applications adjudicated. This termination is not neutral administration of the statute. The Plaintiffs allege it is the latest in a series of premeditated terminations directed at TPS designations for non-white, non-European countries, made without reasoned engagement with country conditions, and motivated at least in part by racial, ethnic, and national-origin-based animus in violation of the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On Mar. 15, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction postponing effective date of agency action, which Judge Dale E. Ho granted on May 1, 2026. The Court finds that TPS holders from Yemen are not "killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies." They are ordinary, law-abiding people who have been granted status to be here because the Government has repeatedly determined, in accordance with the TPS statute, that Yemen is subject to an ongoing armed conflict, and that, due to that conflict, requiring them to return would pose a serious threat to their safety. That determination is subject to periodic review and can be changed. But Congress has, by statute, established a process for such review, which the Secretary failed to adhere to here. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motions to postpone the effective date of the termination of Yemen's TPS designation are granted. The appellate case is styled as Doe v. Mullin, Case No. 26-1748, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NOOR DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Julie Ann Goldberg, Esq. GOLDBERG & ASSOCIATES 3005 Oakwood Boulevard Melvindale, MI 48122 Defendants-Appellants MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 VENTURA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Richardson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RUDI RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURA MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03686-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 1, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Richardson was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance technician. Ventura Management LLC is a property management company in East Point, Georgia, specializing in managing rental properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com WEBINARTV INC: Gaines Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GAINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL ROBERTSON; and WEBINARTV, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03696-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal., June 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant systematically engaged in the unlawful interception, recording, use, and public dissemination of private and access-restricted virtual-meeting communications, constituting a sweeping and egregious invasion of privacy rights. WebinarTV Inc. is a technology, information and media company located in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. COULSON P.C. 13101 Washington Blvd., Suite 244 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Email: nick@coulsonpc.com WESTOVER COMPANIES: Faces Grillo Suit Over Failure to Prevent Fire ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSETTE GRILLO; JARYN GRILLO; and BREAH STRICKLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTOVER COMPANIES D/B/A WESTOVER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.; WESTOVER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.; WPMC GP, LLC; GUNTRAM WEISSENBERGER; EVA WEISSENBERGER; OAK FOREST APARTMENTS; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case Id 260700413 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 2, 2026) is an action alleging that the Defendants were negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless, and created a nuisance by failing to exercise reasonable care, when doing so would have prevented the fire. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants failed to develop, design, construct, inspect, maintain, operate, control, and engineer the Oak Forest Apartments to prevent catastrophic fires from occurring and spreading. As a result of the fire, the Plaintiffs have been forced to expend money and time to deal with disruptions from the fire, as well as remain displaced due to the loss of their homes and almost everything, if not everything in them. They have also experienced a significant diminution in the value of real and personal property as a result of the fire, says the suit. Westover Companies D/B/A Westover Property Management Company, L.P. provides property management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kila B. Baldwin, Esq. Kevin Fay, Esq. Jillian S. Bello, Esq. Dominique L. Montoya, Esq. William L. Santarsiero, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square, Suite 1600 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1130 Email: kbaldwin@anapolweiss.com kfay@anapolweiss.com jbello@anapolweiss.com dmontoya@anapolweiss.com wsantarsiero@anapolweiss.com WEX INC: Mayberry Balks at Health Coverage Processing Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA MAYBERRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06837 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair and deceptive assessment of a uniform $20 "Online Payment Processing Fee" (OPP Fee) to individuals who qualify for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act healthcare coverage. According to the complaint, when consumers make their monthly COBRA premium payments online, WEX tacks on a $20 OPP Fee to all one-time monthly premium payments, regardless of the form of payment, and regardless of the amount. Whether a consumer is paying $10 or $1,000, they are forced to pay the OPP Fee when making online payments to maintain their COBRA coverage. The Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers go through the sign-up process and proceed to checkout without becoming aware of Defendant's OPP Fee until the final payment screens, says the suit. Allegedly, WEX imposes inadequately disclosed, deceptive and unfair junk fees on consumers and their families who are coerced into believing that they have no choice but to pay them. By this conduct, WEX engineered a "pay junk fees to get health care" scheme. Consumers believe that in order to maintain health coverage they must pay the OPP Fee unilaterally set by Defendant, the suit adds. Plaintiff Mayberry's former employer used WEX to offer her federally mandated COBRA benefits. WEX, Inc is a third-party administrator that allows companies to outsource their benefits administration for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act coverage and payment processing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: rsoffin@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com WHITE CASTLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rrugeja Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MIRSIE RRUGEJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05593 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rrugeja was employed by the Defendant as a fast food worker. White Castle System Inc. is the owner and operator of the White Castle fast food restaurants in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Tejada Suit Over Stock Price Decline ----------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HENRY SCHUCK, and M. GRAHAM O'BRIEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02211 (W.D. Wash., June 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding ZoomInfo's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade ZoomInfo securities at artificially inflated prices between November 3, 2025 and May 11, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose facts concerning the true state of ZoomInfo's slowing growth its legacy seat-based subscription platforms and weakening customer retention in its downmarket segment. Further, the company minimized concerns that customers were moving towards consumption-based usage models and developing internal AI-driven go-to-market solutions. Such statements absent these material facts caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase ZoomInfo's securities at artificially inflated prices. When the truth emerged, ZoomInfo's common stock declined dramatically from a closing market price of $6.04 per share on May 11, 2026, ZoomInfo's stock price fell to $4.06 per share on May 12, 2026, a decline of about 33 percent. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. is a software-as-a-service (SaaS) company based in Vancouver, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. TOWNSEND LEGAL, PLLC 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 761-2480 Facsimile: (206) 455-9555 Email: roger@townsendlegal.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***