260716.mbx

260716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 16, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 141 Headlines ACCIDENT FUND: Burton Seeks Overtime Wages for Premium Auditors AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Seal Additional Class Certification OK'd AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilmuth Due June 16, 2027 AMERICAN AUTO: Callier Seeks Attorneys' Fees And Costs AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Phillips Suit Over Motorcycles' Engine Defect AMERICAN NATIONAL: Settlement in Miranda Suit Gets Initial Nod ANAVEX LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Huey Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal APPLE INC: Mettler Sues Over Retinal Scanning Without Consent ARHAUS LLC: Faces Day Class Suit Over Illegal Background Check ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Marihugh Sues Over Compromised Info BBC GLOBAL: Intercepts Web Users' Communication, Kroskey Says BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Sea-Doo Boat "Defective," Long Suit Says BYLT LLC: Faces Kassas Class Suit Over Collection of Personal Info CD MARKETING: Callier Allowed Leave to Conduct Immediate Discovery CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Hitch Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CENTRAL BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says CLOUDFLARE INC: Stichting Sues Over Controller Recapitalization COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Toothpastes Have Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Fry Says COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Webb Suit Gets Initial Nod DAVID YOUNG: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to July 20 DOMINGUEZ LOGISTICS: Izurieta Seeks Unpaid Wages for Installers DRAKE FIELD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Armendarez Alleges EVERGREEN COOPERATIVE: Bullitt Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Arbitration Compelled in Rivera After Severance FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Says GLOBAL PLASMA: Wins Bid to Decertify Fishlock Consumer Suit HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sicheri Says HAZA FOODS: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought HEART OF GOLD: Colbert Seeks Overtime Premium Wages Under FLSA HOME DESIGN: Court Certifies California Class HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY: Gilmore Suit Removed to D. Colorado HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum Claims Denied for Migrants Not Yet in US HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS: Stevens Suit Removed to D. Minnesota HORIZON MEDICAL: Faces Desoto Contract Suit in N.Y. Sup. I.C. SYSTEM INC: Korlou Files Suit in D. Minnesota IMPERIAL BAG & PAPER: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California INSTRUCTURE INC: Jacobs Suit Transferred to D. Utah IRRADIANCE MEDICAL GROUP: Lance Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida J&A GOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 11 JACKERY INC: Olomon Suit Removed to W.D. Washington JCRB INC: Acosta Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action JP MORGAN: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. California JR SIMPLOT COMPANY: Vega Suit Removed to E.D. Washington KOHL'S INC: Swarn Suit Removed to N.D. California LES SCHWAB TIRE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LIFE'S W.O.R.C. INC: Jean Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LINDE GAS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Parra Class Suit Alleges LINE 5: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Friel Suit Due May 10, 2027 MACY'S INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Chin Suit Alleges MACY'S INC: Shaw Suit Removed to C.D. California MAPFRE USA: Faces McDuffie Suit Over Compromised Drivers' Info MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Denial of Class Certification in Houston Affirmed MARKETSHEER LLC: Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA, NYLL MERLE NORMAN: Rousseau Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Ostergaard Sues Over Property Damages MIDFIRST BANK: Intercepts Web Users' Communication, Dawkins Says MISSOURI: Dismissal of Bedford Driver's License Suspension Affirmed NEBULA GENOMICS: Portillo GIPA Suit at Pleading Stage NEP GROUP INC: Lampert Suit Removed to E.D. California NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Hosein Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. NEW YORK: Class Certification Affirmed in Gui Wage Dispute v. DOL NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Patzkowsky Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Book Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Suit Transferred to D. Kansas OMEGA MOULDING: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employment Practices OREGON: Plastic Pollution Act Unconstitutional, Lollicup Alleges PATINA ORLANDO: Fails to Pay Cooks' Proper Wages, Huguely Says PFIZER INC: Myers Class Action Moved from S.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y. Q2 ARTIFICIAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Alleges QUEERTY INC: Intercepts Website Users' Communication, St. Mary Says RETAIL SERVICES: Aids Third Party to Collect User Data, Kent Claims REVERSIBLE INC: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code SAVATREE LLC: Erikson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics SHORE MEDICAL: Mastromarino Data Breach Suit Removed to D.N.J. SORENSON COMMUNICATIONS: Lonesky Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Faces Pamprin Labor Suit in N.Y. Sup. ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Pamprin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. STARBUCKS COFFEE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Taghizadeh Says STERIGENICS U.S. LLC: Ibarra Suit Removed to C.D. California SUMMIT CAPITAL: Wride Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TATTE HOLDINGS: Bunn Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum Wage, Ruffin Says UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, Angeles Alleges VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Moser Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Gambling WAYFAIR LLC: Estreet Class Suit Seeks Over Unpaid OT Under MWHL WAYFAIR LLC: Underpays Warehouse Associates, Matthews Suit Alleges WILLOW BRIDGE: Liu Sues Over Illegal Price Coordination Services ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Tejada Sues Over Decline of Stock Price [] Darrow Revolutionizing Plaintiff Litigation ********* ACCIDENT FUND: Burton Seeks Overtime Wages for Premium Auditors --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN BURTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCIDENT FUND HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-630 (M.D.N.C., July 2, 2026) is a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against the Defendant for all Premium Auditors who file a timely consent to sue pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) who were employed by Defendant AF and who were not paid wages at the overtime wages. The Defendant employed named Plaintiff Burton and all members of the collective action to perform work as Premium Auditors for that same in the time period described above in North Carolina and other states and possessions of the United States of America. Plaintiff Burton was employed as a Premium Auditor by Defendant in and around Guilford County, North Carolina, other counties in this District, and other counties in North Carolina, and he occasionally had to travel to other states for work for which the pay period ended at some point in in the time period after July 2, 2023. The Defendant employed the named Plaintiff and required him to handle and perform work using goods and materials such as computers and other office equipment that had been moved in or produced for interstate commerce by a person or business entity. Additionally, Plaintiff himself was required to travel to states other than North Carolina to perform his work. Finally, most of AF's customer companies whose premiums Plaintiff audited are themselves involved in interstate commerce, alleges the suit. ACCIDENT FUND HOLDINGS, INC. is an American workers' compensation insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Bagley, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: cbagley@carolinalaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Seal Additional Class Certification OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order granting the joint motion to seal additional class certification and Sunding Daubert briefing. The Court orders that the redacted content shall be maintained permanently under seal, with the redacted and public versions attached as Exhibits A through H to the Almeida Declaration, filed in the public record. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bVgv75 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Wilmuth Due June 16, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE WILMUTH, KATHERINE SCHOMER, and ERIN COMBS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.com, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01774-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Whitehead entered an order granting the joint motion to extend discovery deadlines as follows: Event Deadline All discovery motions: Oct. 30, 2026 Close of fact discovery: Dec. 14, 2026 The Plaintiffs' class cert expert Feb. 1, 2027 disclosures: Rebuttal class cert expert disclosures: March 15, 2027 Close of expert discovery: May 17, 2027 The Plaintiffs' motion for class June 16, 2027 certification: The Defendant's opposition to motion July 16, 2027 for class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J4zZca at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com AMERICAN AUTO: Callier Seeks Attorneys' Fees And Costs ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON L. CALLIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AUTO GROUP LLC d/b/a ALL AMERICAN AUTO CARE, a California limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00231-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order awarding him reasonable attorneys' fees of $9,490.00 and costs of $627.00, for a total award of $10,117.00. The Plaintiff's counsel reasonably expended 36.5 hours prosecuting this action from intake through this fee motion. A substantial portion of that time was necessitated by the Defendant's evasion of service, which required multiple summons reissuances and a contested motion to serve the Defendant through the California Secretary of State, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff filed this action on June 25, 2025, alleging that the Defendant sent unsolicited telemarketing text messages to his telephone number registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the TCPA, and the Texas Business and Commerce Code. On June 16, 2026, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres, granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarded the Plaintiff $1,000.00 in statutory damages, and directed that the "Plaintiff shall separately move for attorney's fees and document hours worked on this case by June 30, 2026." American provides automotive services and warranty programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5kf5Kj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Phillips Suit Over Motorcycles' Engine Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEC PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-01727 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2026) arises from American Honda's sale of 2024–2026 Honda CBR600RR motorcycles that are subject to an admitted safety recall because of a dangerous engine defect. The Plaintiff purchased a new Honda CBR600RR for ordinary personal use. He paid for a safe, roadworthy, merchantable motorcycle. Instead, he received a motorcycle subject to a safety defect that Honda admits can cause engine failure, rear-wheel lockup, crash, injury, or fire, says the suit. On December 18, 2025, Honda submitted a Part 573 Safety Recall Report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning certain 2024–2026 Honda CBR600RR motorcycles. The recall is identified as NHTSA Recall No. 25V891 and Manufacturer Recall No. KT52. The recall population includes approximately 1,253 Honda CBR600RR motorcycles manufactured between January 10, 2024, and November 12, 2025. Honda reported that the recalled motorcycles contain a defect caused by improper finishing of the engine block's cylinder surface. As a result, excessive engine oil consumption may occur. If the oil level drops below the minimum required level, oil pressure can decrease, potentially leading to connecting rod bearing seizure Honda's owner recall notice likewise warned owners that excessive engine oil consumption may occur; that the engine may seize if the oil level drops below the minimum required level; and that engine seizure may cause rear-wheel lockup, breach of the engine case, and/or engine oil contact with the exhaust system or rear tire, increasing the risk of crash, injury, or fire. Despite the seriousness of this safety defect, Honda did not provide Plaintiff and Class Members with an immediately available final repair. Honda's NHTSA recall schedule identifies dealer notification as occurring on or about December 12, 2025, interim owner notification as scheduled for February 16, 2026, and planned remedy owner notification only as a "Phased Recall," the suit further asserts. American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. BOHREN LAW 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com AMERICAN NATIONAL: Settlement in Miranda Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEIDA MIRANDA, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, Case No. 3:22-cv-03633-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kim entered an order granting a second renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement and motion for class certification. The Court grants the motion for class certification for the following class and subclass: (1) "all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant in California between May 13, 2018 through Feb. 9, 2024"; and (2) "all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant in California during the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Period—March 10, 2021 through Feb. 9, 2024." The Court appoints Aleida Miranda as Settlement Class Representative. The Court appoints Arby Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, and Selena Matavosian of Lawyers for Justice, PC as Class Counsel. The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action and PAGA settlement. The parties' Settlement Agreement satisfies the higher level of scrutiny applied to negotiated settlements before formal class certification. The Court appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Settlement Administrator and directs it to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to implement the proposed class notice plan and procedure described above. The parties are further directed to submit a stipulation and proposed order tracking the schedule above, filled in with actual dates, within two weeks of the entry of this Order The Total Settlement Amount is $3,500,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant in full settlement of the Action, Released Class Claims, Released PAGA Claims, and includes without limitation the Class Counsel Award, Class Representative Enhancement Award, Individual Settlement Payments, Individual PAGA Payments, LWDA Payment, and Settlement Administrator Costs. American National provides emergency assistance, disaster relief and education inside the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D7yTRQ at no extra charge.[CC] ANAVEX LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Huey Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of QUINTESSA HUEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, JONATHAN BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORPORATION, CHRISTOPHER U. MISSLING, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-1752 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing Huey's complaint and denying her request to replead. The case concerns the pleading requirements for alleging loss causation in a securities fraud action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiff, Huey, owned shares of Anavex, a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company that develops early-stage therapies for central nervous system diseases. Huey filed a proposed class action against Anavex and its former CEO, Missling, alleging that they misled investors by implying that the FDA had approved the methodology used to measure a drug candidate's efficacy in clinical trials. Although Anavex later announced that it would abandon the purportedly FDA-approved methodology, its stock price rose that day and declined only over the following two days, during which it moved in line with the broader market. In 2016, Anavex announced positive preclinical results for ANAVEX 2-73, a drug candidate for Rett syndrome. To seek FDA approval, the company later conducted Phase 2 and Phase 2/3 clinical trials using standardized endpoints to measure the drug’s effectiveness, including the Rett Syndrome Behavioral Questionnaire (RSBQ) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. These measures could be "anchored" together to compare caregiver-reported patient improvements with clinicians' assessments. A competitor, Neuren, also developed a Rett syndrome treatment called DAYBUE. In its Phase 3 trial, the FDA approved Neuren's use of an anchored RSBQ/CGI-I endpoint to measure efficacy by comparing patients' final scores after treatment with their baseline scores. The trial produced positive results, and the FDA approved DAYBUE for marketing in March 2023. Anavex used a different method to measure ANAVEX 2-73's effectiveness in its clinical trials. Instead of comparing only baseline and end-of-treatment RSBQ/CGI-I scores, Anavex included mid-treatment scores in a metric called RSBQ-AUC. This approach could produce positive results even when patients showed no improvement, or even worsening symptoms, by the end of the study compared with their baseline scores. As a result, RSBQ-AUC could show favorable treatment effects where the traditional RSBQ/CGI-I endpoint used in the DAYBUE trial would show neutral or negative results. During the ANAVEX 2-73 Rett syndrome trials, the Defendants made public statements about the trial endpoints and results. On January 2, 2024, Anavex announced that the EXCELLENCE study did not show statistically significant improvement in patients' symptoms using the FDA-approved pre-to-post-treatment RSBQ/CGI-I endpoint. Following the announcement, Anavex's stock price dropped from $9.31 to $6.05 per share. Huey sought to represent a class of all persons who purchased Anavex stock on the Nasdaq between February 1, 2022, and January 1, 2024, inclusive ("Class Period"), against Anavex and Missling for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. She claimed the FDA had instructed Anavex to use the RSBQ/CGI-I endpoint and argued that Anavex should have known RSBQ-AUC was unacceptable because the FDA approved the RSBQ/CGI-I endpoint for a competitor's Rett syndrome treatment. However, Huey did not identify any specific FDA meetings where the agency told Anavex that its endpoint was unacceptable. The Defendants moved to dismiss the class action, and the district court granted the motion, dismissing Huey's claims with prejudice. The court found that Huey sufficiently alleged falsity and scienter only for Anavex's February 2, 2023 statement that it had received FDA input on the endpoints used in the study. It determined that Huey plausibly alleged the statement was misleading because it did not disclose that the FDA had rejected the RSBQ-AUC endpoint, and that Anavex's later decision to stop using that endpoint supported an inference of scienter. However, the district court held that Huey failed to adequately plead loss causation because Anavex's stock price increased on the day of the corrective disclosure and declined only over the following two days while moving with the broader market. The court denied leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile because Huey could not establish falsity for the remaining statements or loss causation for the February 2 statement. Huey appealed, challenging the district court's finding that she failed to adequately plead loss causation regarding the Defendants' February 2, 2023 statement. The Defendants argued that the loss causation ruling was correct and further contended that Huey failed to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter. The Second Circuit explained that a Section 10(b) claim under the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 requires a plaintiff to plead falsity, scienter, a connection to the purchase or sale of securities, reliance, economic loss, and loss causation. On appeal, the parties disputed falsity, scienter, and loss causation. Because the Court concluded that Huey failed to adequately plead loss causation, it did not address whether she sufficiently alleged falsity and scienter. The Second Circuit held that Huey failed to plausibly plead loss causation because her complaint did not explain why the alleged loss occurred after a delay or why Anavex's stock price increased on the day of the corrective disclosure. It found that the initial stock price increase, the stock's movement with the broader market over the following days, and the delayed decline undermined the alleged causal connection between the disclosure and the loss. Because Huey did not identify additional facts that could cure these deficiencies, the Court agreed that amendment would be futile and upheld the denial of leave to amend. Hence, it affirmed the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/kKf4ZyLYH. ADAM M. APTON -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. STEPHEN G. TOPETZES -- stephen.topetzes@klgates.com -- (Theodore L. Kornobis -- ted.kornobis@klgates.com -- on the brief), K&L Gates LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees. APPLE INC: Mettler Sues Over Retinal Scanning Without Consent ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA METTLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-07825 N.D. Ill., July 3, 2026) is about the unlawful collection of iris or retinal scanning by Apple, without adequate consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Through advertisements, Apple tries to bake privacy representations into their brand -- creating a popular belief that Apple's respect for privacy is at the forefront of their guiding principles for their technology products. This, however, is demonstrably false, the suit alleges. By Apple's own admission, deep within the content of its own website, and using the technology that Apple already deploys elsewhere, Apple collects scans of the iris and retina of each person who uses Face ID even though Apple never expressly informs them in writing. The Plaintiff and Class members had no knowledge of this. Apple collects this information whether Face ID is being used for unlocking an Apple Device or not. Specifically, Apple, in the recesses of its website, requires that Face ID cannot be set up unless "the camera can see your eyes" while using Face ID to ensure that the user is actually looking at their phone; this is because Apple's Face ID uses technology that collects iris or retinal scans, the suit contends. Plaintiff Mettler and Class members are Illinois residents who own Apple Devices and who use Apple's facial recognition feature (Face ID) for the purposes of using said Apple Devices. Apple is a Cupertino, California-based technology product company. The Company is the manufacturer, developer, distributor, and seller of the Apple Products as well as the creator and programmer for TrueCamera, the Face ID feature, and the Attention Features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC RXR Plaza 626 RexCorp Plaza, Suite 605 Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com ARHAUS LLC: Faces Day Class Suit Over Illegal Background Check -------------------------------------------------------------- COREY MIKE DAY, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARHAUS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02207-E (N.D. Tex., July 2, 2026) is a class action against Arhaus pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, the Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and/or (iii) certify that Defendant complied regarding 200+ million consumer files—an average of fifteen changes per file. Plaintiff Day was the subject of a consumer report procured by the Defendant. Arhaus is an American retail company specializing in home and outdoor furniture throughout the United States including Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney C. Washington SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 107 S. McGraw Ave. Forney, TX 75126 Telephone: (972) 349-1906 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: cwashington@sirillp.com ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING: Marihugh Sues Over Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE MARIHUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCEAMERICA MANAGING GENERAL AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03592-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between March 16, 2026, and March 17, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. AssuranceAmerica Managing General Agency, LLC is a provider of auto, renters, and commercial auto insurance based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 210 W. Division Street Maryville, IL 62062 Telephone: (618) 418-5180 Email: tmathews@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com BBC GLOBAL: Intercepts Web Users' Communication, Kroskey Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN KROSKEY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. BBC GLOBAL NEWS US, LLC; BBC.COM LIMITED; and BBC STUDIOS DISTRIBUTION LIMITED, Case No. 3:26-cv-06844 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.bbc.com, an online news platform that Defendant provides for public access and use pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act. During his use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal and sensitive browsing activity, including his verbatim on-site search queries for "Debt solutions" and "debt" and communications reflecting his interest in debt-solution, debt-consolidation, and personal-finance topics. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing, the page titles, descriptive event slugs that themselves restate the content of each page, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. Accordingly, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish their commercial objectives, including identity resolution, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users’ browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The Defendant has done so from prior to the beginning of the class period in this case and continuously through to today and ongoingly, the suit says. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of his own browsing session. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded, or a user performs a tracked action. BBC Global is a Delaware limited liability company that operates and helps to make available the Website and its digital subscription services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Sea-Doo Boat "Defective," Long Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LORI LONG, JAMES ABREU, SCOTT BAUER, and CRAIG CORLEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. and BRP US, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-10139 (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Florida's Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Bombardier's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a jet-powered pontoon boat under the brand name "Sea-Doo." Bombardier represents its Sea-Doo pontoon boats as safe, seaworthy recreational vessels suitable for the enjoyment of consumers and their families. In reality, however, the Sea-Doo Switch pontoon boats contain a dangerous design defect that allows water to accumulate in the vessel's hull, causing the boat to lose stability, nosedive, and capsize. Bombardier's omissions and misrepresentations regarding the seaworthiness of these boats, including its failure to disclose the defect and its misleading representations regarding the effectiveness of the recall repair, deceived consumers, who paid a premium price for vessels that were worth substantially less than represented. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. is a manufacturer of watercraft and related products based in Valcourt, Quebec, Canada. BRP US, Inc. is a company that markets, distributes, imports, and sells watercraft products based in Sturtevant, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq. MADERAL BYRNE & FURST PLLC 2800 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 520-5690 Email: rachel@maderalbyrne.com - and - Judd G. Rosen, Esq. Brett M. Rosen, Esq. Mustafa H. Dandashly, Esq. GOLDBERG & ROSEN, PA One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3650 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-4200 Email: judd@goldbergandrosen.com; brett@goldbergandrosen.com; mdandashly@goldbergandrosen.com BYLT LLC: Faces Kassas Class Suit Over Collection of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY KASSAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BYLT, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26STC21076 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2026) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers from whom Defendants requested and recorded personal identification information in conjunction with in-store credit card purchase transactions at Defendants' California retail stores within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action through trial pursuant to the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. The Defendants operate retail stores throughout the United States, including California. The Defendants violated and continue to violate the Credit Card Act through their practice of collecting personal information from customers. The Defendants' cashiers request and record personal identification information, including telephone numbers and email addresses, from customers making purchases with credit cards at the point-of-sale in Defendants' retail stores, the suit says. The Defendants' acts and practices as herein alleged were at all times intentional. There is no legitimate need for Defendants to collect this information from credit card customers in order to complete the credit card transaction. Instead, Defendants use the unlawfully obtained personal identification information for their own business purposes, the suit adds. Bylt, LLC provides apparels online. The Company offers t-shirts,hoodies, pants, joggers, shorts, leggings, accessories, and other related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Dr, Ste 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com jim@lcllp.com - and - Albert Y. Pak, Esq. PAK HEINZ PLLC 20 F Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 505-6350 E-mail: albert.pak@pakheinz.com CD MARKETING: Callier Allowed Leave to Conduct Immediate Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON CALLIER, v. CD MARKETING LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00228-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct immediate discovery and memorandum of law in support. The Plaintiff may proceed only with the limited discovery requested in his motion, i.e., discovery to "determine the propriety of class certification, including the identity of the class, whether the class is ascertainable, and to calculate damages." The Court further orders that the deadline to file for default judgment and/or class certification is extended to three months from the date of this order, Sept. 30, 2026. On June 24, 2025, the Plaintiff brought this class action suit against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and of Texas Business and Commerce Code sections 305.053, 302.101. Despite being properly served, the Defendant has failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint, and is now in default, thus denying the Plaintiff the opportunity for discovery through traditional means. The purpose of the Defendant's discovery weighs toward granting. By not appearing or responding in this case and defaulting, the Plaintiff likely has no other recourse to determine class certification or calculate damages. The burden on Defendant is small compared to the necessity of the information requested, further weighing toward granting. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vhJ2jv at no extra charge.[CC] CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Hitch Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN HITCH, DIANA GARCIAMOZQUEDA, MARK SIMONEAU, and HENRY SOK individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a foreign general partnership doing business as VERIZON WIRELESS; SEATTLE SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership doing business as VERIZON WIRELESS; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01469-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as: "All current and former employees of Cellco Partnership, Seattle SMSA Limited Partnership, and Verizon Communications Inc., who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from July 2, 2022, through the date notice is provided to the class." Certification is warranted because the Plaintiffs and all class members were subject to identical outside employment restrictions and noncompetition covenants. Accordingly, the Court should grant class certification, appoint the Plaintiffs as class representative, appoint their counsel as class counsel, and order that notice be issued to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(c). The Defendants allegedly prohibited approximately 936 low wage Washington employees from holding a second job in their industry or providing any kind of assistance to competitors while paying them an unlivable wage. The Plaintiff Hitch has worked for Verizon since October 2013 in its Washington retail stores. He was hired as a Retail Sales Representative and later became a Retail Specialist. Cellco provides wireless voice and data services and related equipment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTQ21s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com CENTRAL BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL BRANDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5730 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.fancybands.net to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Fitbit Versa 1/2 Watch Band from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MILTON WILLIAMS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CENTRAL BRANDS LLC operates the Fancy Bands online retail store, as well as the Fancy Bands interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: bands, cases, and purses, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CLOUDFLARE INC: Stichting Sues Over Controller Recapitalization --------------------------------------------------------------- STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS ABP, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW PRINCE, MICHELLE ZATLYN, SCOTT SANDELL, KARIM LAKHANI, KATRIN SUDER, STACEY CUNNINGHAM, JOHN GRAHAM CUMMING, MARK HAWKINS, CARL LEDBETTER, and CLOUDFLARE, INC., Case No. 2026-0874 (Del. Ch., July 3, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and similarly situated Class A common stockholders of Cloudflare, Inc., seeking a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in this action to halt the unfair, power entrenching Recapitalization. According to the complaint, the Recapitalization is not entirely fair, as it was recommended by conflicted directors and cements the Co-Founders' control with minimal restrictions on potentially billions of dollars' worth of stock sales and no compensation to unaffiliated stockholders. Ultimately, the Recapitalization only serves to expand and make permanent the "wedge" between the Co-Founders' voting power and economic interest, the suit says. The action challenges the Recapitalization, a conflicted controller transaction specifically designed to allow Cloudflare's Co-Founders and controlling stockholders, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn, to continue to liquidate massive amounts of their equity while retaining majority voting control of the Company. Since the Company's IPO in 2019, the Co-Founders have controlled Cloudflare's voting power, primarily through ten-vote-per-share Class B common stock. Over the past several years, however, the Co-Founders sold massive amounts of Company stock, threatening to push them below the majority threshold. Specifically, the Co-Founders caused the Board to form a conflicted committee to review the Recapitalization with the express purpose of effectuating a transaction that would cement the Co-Founders' control and allow them to continue monetizing their shares. After securing some immaterial governance terms, the Special Committee recommended, and the Board approved, exactly the deal the Co-Founders wanted -- for free, alleges the suit. Cloudflare, Inc. is an American technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California that provides a range of Internet services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward G. Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. Aasiya Mirza Glover, Esq. JOHNSON VAN KWAWEGEN LLP 221 W. 10th Street, Suite 423 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 330-8002 E-mail: Daniel@jvk-law.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Toothpastes Have Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Fry Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANET FRY, MICHAEL WALSH, and JASON FERGUSON on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. THE COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 3:26-cv-03858-RBM-AHG (S.D. Cal, July 2, 2026) is a class action against Colgate-Palmolive on behalf of the Plaintiff, similarly situated Class Members, and the general public to enjoin Colgate-Palmolive from deceptively marketing Colgate Total toothpastes and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. Colgate-Palmolive sells a variety of Colgate Total toothpastes that it markets as delivering oral health benefits including improved gum health and treatment of gingivitis. These representations are misleading, however, 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 Colgate-Palmolive claims the Products prevent or reduce. During the relevant time period, Colgate-Palmolive has sold Colgate Total Active Prevention Toothpaste in several varieties, including at least Fresh Mint, Clean Mint, Whitening, Advanced Whitening, Deep Clean, Whitening+Charcoal, Plaque Cleanse, Plaque Pro-Release Fresh Mint, and Plaque Pro-Release Whitening, says the suit. Sodium lauryl sulfate is an anionic surfactant, used to decrease the surface tension of water, and often used in toothpaste for its cleansing and foaming effects. It has been a standard surfactant in toothpastes since the 1970s. Most commercially available toothpastes contain from 0.5 to 2.0% SLS. Nevertheless, SLS can irritate mucous membranes in the mouth, cause canker sores and allergic reactions, inhibit gingival healing, and upset the oral microbiome, even in low concentrations, the suit further alleges. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[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: mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com Jfitzgerald@Fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop ---------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMVAULT SYSTEMS, INC., SANJAY MIRCHANDANI, and JENNIFER L. DIRICO, Case No. 3:26-cv-08144 (D.N.J., July 2, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a Class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Commvault securities between January 28, 2025 and January 26, 2026, inclusive against Commvault and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, maintaining an appropriate balance between software licenses and SaaS sales is critical, as an overemphasis on SaaS would materially reduce margins due to, among other things, lower average selling prices (ASP) and shorter contract durations. Because Commvault's software licenses and SaaS products are sold on a subscription basis, the Company claims Annualized Recurring Revenue (ARR) and Net New ARR (NNARR) are key performance metrics. NNARR serves as a growth indicator because it measures the net increase in ARR during a given period. The action alleges that Defendants misled investors about Commvault's competitive positioning and concealed that rising competition forced the Company to offer substantial concessions on price and contract duration for its on-premise software licenses. The truth emerged before markets opened on January 27, 2026, when Commvault announced its third-quarter fiscal year 20261 financial results. Commvault disclosed NNARR in constant currency of $39 million, missing analysts' expectations of approximately $45 million. Chief Accounting Officer Danielle Abrahamsen revealed that the mix of SaaS deals increased to "70%" during the quarter and highlighted that "landing these customers at a 2 to 3x smaller ASP than software does have a significant impact on ARR." On this news, the price of Commvault common stock fell $40.23 per share, or about 31%, to close at a price of $89.13 per share on January 27, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's securities when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Commvault provides on-premise software licenses and cloud-delivered Software as a Service ("SaaS") solutions, among other offerings, aimed at protecting and restoring customer data and cloud applications. Most of the Company's revenue is derived from on-premise term software licenses and subscription-based SaaS offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Webb Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WEBB, DEBBIE FRANCISCO, and LAWRENCE THAYER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00211-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky,), the Hon. Judge Ingram entered an order that: (1) Preliminary certification of the Rule 23 Class as defined in the proposed settlement agreement is granted. (2) The Settlement Class defined below is conditionally certified. "All natural persons residing or owning residential real property on Nov. 22, 2023, within a three-mile radius centered on the CSXT train derailment site in Rockcastle County, Kentucky." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are the following persons: (i) CSXT; (ii) Class Counsel; (iii) the Judge(s) presiding over the Action; (iv) current employees of CSXT; and (v) all persons who properly execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. (3) The request to preliminarily appoint Lauren Webb, Debbie Francisco, and Lawrence Thayer as Class Representatives is granted. (4) The Plaintiffs' counsel (as identified in the Settlement Agreement) are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (5) The request for approval of the Short Form Notice and Long Form Notice (and the proposed schedule and procedure for the final approval) is granted, though on the terms stated herein. The parties accordingly shall promptly file the final versions of the Short Form Notice and Long Form Notice and a revised deadlines chart that reflects the deadlines as stated in this Order. (6) A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled before the undersigned at 10:00 a.m. eastern on Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2026. (7) This Order terminates Docket Entry 70 as a pending motion. CSX is a Class I freight railroad company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rcmlRz at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID YOUNG: Class Cert Response Filing Extended to July 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KNELLINGER, et al., v. David Young et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01379 (D. Colo., Filed June 1, 2022), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N Sweeney entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to motion for class certification. -- Response due on or before July 20, 2026 The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes -- Civil Rights (Personal Property).[CC] DOMINGUEZ LOGISTICS: Izurieta Seeks Unpaid Wages for Installers --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO IZURIETA and GUIDO TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMINGUEZ LOGISTICS, LLC, and DORIAN DOMINGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05391 (S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as fiber optic cable installers in 2025. Dominguez Logistics, LLC is a fiber optic cable installation services provider based in Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DRAKE FIELD: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Armendarez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ARMENDAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRAKE FIELD SERVICES, LLC AND JAMES ANDREW DRAKE, Case No. 7:26-cv-00252 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2026) contends that the Plaintiff was classified by Defendants as an independent contractor and paid a flat day rate regardless of the number of hours he worked during his employment in violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although Plaintiff routinely worked 16 or more hours per day, seven days per week, the Defendants failed to pay him overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff was not an independent contractor. Rather, the Defendants controlled virtually every aspect of Plaintiff's work, including where he worked, when he worked, the schedule he worked, the assignments he performed, and the manner in which he performed those assignments. In addition to paying Plaintiff a day rate, Defendants also paid Plaintiff per diem payments that functioned as compensation rather than bona fide reimbursements of business expenses. These per diem payments should have been included in Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime compensation, says the suit. The Plaintiff formerly worked for Defendants as a Safety Engineer in the oil and gas industry from approximately October 2025 until June 2026. The Plaintiff brings an individual claim for unlawful retaliation under the FLSA. He complained to Defendants regarding their failure to compensate him for all hours worked and copied his attorney on that communication. Defendants immediately terminated Plaintiff's employment and expressly informed him that he was being terminated because he copied his attorney on the email. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA were knowing, willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's statutory rights, alleges the suit. DRAKE FIELD SERVICES, LLC is a staffing and occupational health company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 3267 Bee Cave Rd., Ste. 107, Box # 201 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com EVERGREEN COOPERATIVE: Bullitt Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- EONTE BULLITT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EVERGREEN COOPERATIVE LAUNDRY, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01521-CAB (N.D. Ohio, July 2, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff between February 2026 and April 2026 as a production assistant at its Collinwood, Ohio facility. Other similarly situated employees were employed as laundry aides and production assistants at Defendant's Glenville and Collinwood facilities. The Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as non-exempt employees. Evergreen is a non-profit corporation that provides laundry services to its customers, including hospitals, hotels, and nursing homes with locations in Glenville, Ohio and Collinwood, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. LAZZARO LAW FIRM The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com FLAGSHIP FACILITY: Arbitration Compelled in Rivera After Severance ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of MA AZUCENA VARGAS RIVERA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FLAGSHIP FACILITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. H052759 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, reversed the trial court's order denying the Defendants' motion compel arbitration of Rivera's individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and stay the action. Rivera filed a proposed wage and hour class action against her former employer, Flagship Facility Services, Inc., and three affiliated entities: Flagship Enterprises Holding, Inc., Flagship Sweeping Services, Inc., and Flagship Airport Services, Inc. The dispute resolution agreement was a standalone four-page arbitration agreement that Rivera signed during the hiring process. It required employees to arbitrate employment-related disputes and waive the right to bring class actions. The agreement included a notice at the top of the first page, translated into Spanish and another language, stating that employees were responsible for reading and understanding the agreement and could seek outside assistance if they chose. The rest of the agreement was written in English. Rivera filed a proposed class action against the Defendants as her alleged joint employers, asserting Labor Code and wage order violations, including unpaid wages, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse necessary expenses. She also asserted a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the alleged Labor Code violations. Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Rivera's individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and stay the action based on the dispute resolution agreement they claimed Rivera signed when she was hired in December 2018. They argued that the FAA governed the agreement, that it covered Rivera’s employment claims, and that it was enforceable. Defendants also argued that the class waiver required dismissal of the proposed class claims while Rivera's individual claims proceeded in arbitration. In support of the motion, the Defendants submitted a declaration from Flagship Facility Services, Inc.'s senior director of human resources operations, who stated that the company provided facilities management and janitorial services nationwide. Rivera's employment records showed that she worked for Flagship Facility Services, Inc. from December 2018 to February 2023, and that the four Flagship defendants were affiliated entities. Rivera opposed the motion, arguing that she did not agree to the arbitration agreement because she was a Spanish speaker who could not read English and was not informed about the agreement. She also argued that the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, citing the lack of translation, failure to provide a copy or explain the agreement, complex legal language, and provisions such as the class waiver and confidentiality requirement. Rivera contended that the agreement's defects could not be fixed through severance and should not be enforced. In reply, the Defendants argued that Rivera's declaration was insufficient to dispute the authenticity of her signature or the arbitration agreement. A few months after filing the wage and hour class action, Rivera filed a separate action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.) against the Defendants alleging Labor Code violations. The Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Rivera's individual PAGA claim and dismiss her representative PAGA claim. They argued that Rivera was exempt from PAGA under Labor Code section 2699.8 because she was a janitorial employee covered by a qualifying collective bargaining agreement. Rivera opposed the PAGA motion in a consolidated opposition that also addressed the motion to compel arbitration in the class action. She argued that the Defendants failed to prove that the PAGA exemption applied. In reply, the Defendants relied on a collective bargaining agreement that they claimed covered Rivera and attached it to the human resources director's declaration in the class action. The trial court held a combined hearing on the Defendants' motions in the class action and PAGA action. It found that the FAA applied and that Rivera had signed the arbitration agreement, but it denied enforcement after determining the agreement was unconscionable. The court found a high degree of procedural unconscionability because the agreement was presented as part of new hire paperwork, was not translated or explained to Rivera, and she was not given an opportunity to review or understand it before signing. It also found several substantively unconscionable provisions, including the one-sided class waiver, confidentiality provision, subpoena provision, and internal dispute resolution requirement. Because the agreement was unenforceable and the defects could not be severed, the court denied Defendants' request to dismiss the class claims. In the PAGA action, however, the court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Rivera's representative PAGA claim, finding that Labor Code section 2699.8 applied based on the collective bargaining agreement covering Rivera. The Defendants appealed the order denying arbitration and dismissal of the class claims. They argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the action. They contended that the FAA's procedural provisions applied, that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, and that any improper provisions should have been severed. For the first time on appeal, the Defendants also argued that an arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement between Rivera's union and the Defendants required arbitration of her individual claims and dismissal of the class claims. The Court of Appeals declined to consider the Defendants' new argument that arbitration was required under the collective bargaining agreement because it was raised for the first time on appeal. Instead, it reviewed whether arbitration should have been compelled under the standalone dispute resolution agreement. The Court held that California law governed the procedural issues, that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable, and that only its confidentiality provision was substantively unconscionable. It rejected the trial court's conclusions that the discovery and informal dispute resolution provisions were unconscionable. Finding that the confidentiality provision could be severed without affecting the remainder of the agreement, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever it. It concluded that the remainder of the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the action should have been granted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with directions to sever the arbitration agreement's confidentiality provision and grant the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the action. Each party was ordered to bear its own appellate costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/qscQ7GBDt FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASTRID GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUTUREDONTICS, LLC d/b/a 1-800 DENTIST, Case No. 1:26-cv-24573 (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harm it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. In the course of its ordinary business operations, the Defendant solicits, collects, and maintains substantial amounts of highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, and has a resulting duty to ensure the Private Information in its possession remains safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. On or around June 28, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network that resulted in highly sensitive files being exfiltrated. Since the Data Breach occurred, the notorious ransomware gang "Qilin" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach, publishing sample files containing patient records, payroll data, financial information, and treatment information. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, alleges the suit. The Defendant is the largest free dental referral service, connecting consumers with dentists across the United States. [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 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com GLOBAL PLASMA: Wins Bid to Decertify Fishlock Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Keith Fishlock, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Plasma Solutions Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-cv-00522-SB (D. Del.), Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, granted the Defendant's motion to decertify a class of consumers who purchased the Defendant's air purifiers. This class action alleged that the Defendant fraudulently marketed air purifiers as cures for COVID-19. In September 2025, the Court certified a class of consumers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing it was not ascertainable. The Court agreed. The Court explained that a district court may revisit certification at any point and retains authority to decertify a class that proves unmanageable. District courts must reassess class rulings as a case develops, and what once appeared manageable no longer was. At certification, the Court had concluded that the products' serial numbers, coupled with retailer records, could identify buyers, confirm class membership, and make notice possible. That assumption proved wrong. The record showed that the Plaintiff could not connect the serial numbers to individual buyers because the air purifiers could be traced only to independent retailers, which generally did not retain customer information. The Plaintiff identified no other reliable way to determine who bought which purifier. The Court held that Rule 23 required both objective criteria and a reliable and administratively feasible way to determine class membership. The Plaintiff's proposed mechanism of using serial numbers plus retailer records failed once discovery showed he could not tie the numbers to purchasers. A party's assurance that it intends to meet Rule 23's requirements was insufficient, and Rule 23 demanded proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the class was currently and readily ascertainable. The Plaintiff had effectively conceded that he could not find the class members. The Court also found that the same evidentiary gap defeated the requirement of providing the best notice practicable under Rule 23(c)(2). The Plaintiff could not identify the people entitled to notice without further discovery, despite having already had several months to conduct discovery on class certification issues. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's request for additional discovery, noting he had not explained why more discovery would yield a different result and that showing 4,760 purifiers were sold in Delaware between 2020 and 2024 did not establish ascertainability. The Court concluded that Rule 23 required certification only of classes that could actually be tried. Because the Plaintiff could not reliably identify the class members, continued certification was no longer appropriate. The Court granted the motion to decertify. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 7, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mFgX1P from PacerMonitor.com HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sicheri Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL KATZ SICHERI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC.; GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH DAVIS LLP; JOHN DOES 1-100 (names being fictitious); and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100 (names being fictitious), Case No. 2:26-cv-08164-SDW-JBC (D.N.J., July 3, 2026) is a class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons impacted by the Defendants' failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain, and protect highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Greenbaum collected, stored, and maintained Plaintiffs' and the Class' Sensitive Information as part of its business activities as a back-office service provider to commercial and governmental entities, including entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. On or between November 25, 2025, and November 27, 2025, cybercriminals gained access to Greenbaum's networks. The cybercriminals enjoyed that access for several days, during which time they exfiltrated files associated with Greenbaum's clients and customers, including Plaintiff. Those files included Sensitive Information such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, treatment information, and medical information. On November 27, 2025, Greenbaum discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident. Despite discovering the attack in November 2025, it was not until June 29, 2026 -- more than six months after the attack—that Greenbaum began providing notice to impacted individuals. In other words, Greenbaum publicly confirmed Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information was stolen in the Data Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, the following types of Sensitive Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, Social Security number, date of birth, medical information, including treatment date information, health insurance number, and provider information. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC. is an American network of healthcare providers in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Ayers, Esq SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry Street 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Telephone: (973) 954-2000 Facsimile: (973) 954-9710 E-mail: Chris.Ayers@sbaitilaw.com - and - Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. Matthew B. Sicheri, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry Street 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 954-2000 Facsimile: (973) 954-9710 E-mail: chris.ayers@sbaitilaw.com matthew.sicheri@sbaitilaw.com HAZA FOODS: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAZA FOODS, LLC; HAZA FOODS OF NORTHEAST, LLC; HAZA FOODS OF MINNESOTA LLC and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 6:24-cv-06180-EAW-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and extending the time within which the Parties may conduct class certification discovery, and the subsequent briefing schedule. The Parties are in the midst of advanced settlement negotiations and are cautiously optimistic of achieving a resolution. To further facilitate the settlement negotiations, the Parties move this Court to extend the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. HAZA is the largest Wendy's franchise. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=77rlGj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 857-5350 E-mail: ben@nshmlaw.com - and - Scott C. Fanning, Esq. Kevin S. Simon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP-IL 10 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 TelePhone: (312) 346-8061 E-mail: ksimon@fisherphillips.com sfanning@fisherphillips.com HEART OF GOLD: Colbert Seeks Overtime Premium Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- TOMISNE COLBERT, and of similarly situated individuals v. HEART OF GOLD TRANSPORT, LLC; A'TARKA P. MCELROY; SPEEDX, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-00324-JCB (E.D. Tex., July 2, 2026) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, which arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime premium wages. Plaintiff Tomisne Colbert worked for the Defendants as a delivery truck driver within the last three years and was a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime protections under the FLSA and Texas Labor Code. The Defendant employed Plaintiff to perform work as a delivery truck driver. Heart of Gold Transport, LLC is a transportation and logistics company based in Cleburne, Texas, that primarily operates in the trucking and freight sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com HOME DESIGN: Court Certifies California Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Bermudez v. Home Design Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-02376-SSS-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to certify class. -- The Court only certifies the California Class, defined as: "all persons who purchased a subject bed Product in California on Wayfair.com whose order was not returned or whose order status does not indicate that it is cancelled, new, pending cancellation, pending return confirmation, pending shipping confirmation, pending supplier assignment, or PO not printed or sent." -- The Plaintiffs Martin Bermudez is appointed as class representative, and the law firm of Smith Krivoshey, PC is designated as class counsel. -- The Court orders the Plaintiff to file a Notice Plan and a Motion for Notice Approval on or before July 15, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Because the Plaintiff has not carried his threshold burden to show that California has significant contacts with the claims of each Nationwide Class member, California law cannot constitutionally be applied to the claims of out-of-state class members. This is a putative class action arising from the recall of certain upholstered low-profile bed frames manufactured by Defendant W A Cushion, a Malaysian company, and previously distributed by former defendant Home Design Inc. Home is a full-service kitchen renovation and home improvement company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e3kyC9 at no extra charge.[CC] HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY: Gilmore Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anton Gilmore, Keith Williams, and Brian Licea, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, and Timothy Holloman, Johnny Allen, Sean Moore, and Jefferey Askew, individually v. HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC d/b/a TEMCO LOGISTICS, a California corporation,, Case No. 2026CV31803 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for District of Colorado on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02997. The Plaintiffs assert four causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for all Work Performed on behalf of Representative Plaintiffs and all Class Members in violation of Colorado Wage and Hour Law ("CWA") and 7 Colo. Code Reg. 1103-1 ("Colorado Overtime and Minimum Standards Order" ("COMPS")); Failure to Pay Overtime Premiums on behalf of Representative Plaintiffs and all Class Members in violation of the CWA and COMPS; Failure to Comply with State Rest and Meal Break Requirements on behalf of Representative Plaintiffs and all Class Members in violation of the CWA and COMPS, Rule 5.1; and Violations of the CWA's Anti-Retaliation Provisions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2000 South Colorado Boulevard Tower Three, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: 303.764.6800 Facsimile: 303.831.9246 Email: rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com - and - Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Capella Tower 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 1800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.263.8030 Facsimile: 385.360.1707 Email: jason.plowman@ogletree.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Asylum Claims Denied for Migrants Not Yet in US ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., Petitioners, v. AL OTRO LADO, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 25-5 (U.S.), Judge Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States held that an alien waiting in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) and therefore is not entitled to apply for asylum or require inspection by immigration officers before entering the country. The case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico "arrives in the United States" when he or she is still in Mexico. The INA, 66 Stat. 163 governs the process by which an alien who "arrives in the United States" is inspected by border officials, is deemed an applicant for admission, and may apply for asylum. The question in this case is when an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico "arrives in the United States" within the meaning of that phrase in two key INA provisions—8 U.S.C. Sections 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1): when the alien is standing in Mexico at the border or only when the alien crosses the border and enters the country? In the spring of 2016, U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began experiencing a surge of aliens seeking admission at ports of entry along the U. S.-Mexico border, with numbers sometimes far exceeding safe and secure processing capacity. In November 2016, the Department of Homeland Security responded by adopting a policy of "metering" the number of arriving aliens whom CBP would inspect each day and allow to apply for asylum. To enforce the policy, officials stood on the U. S. side of the border and prevented aliens from entering the United States beyond the number the port could adequately process. The metering policy continued through the change in Presidential administrations. In 2017, asylum seekers and the immigration advocacy organization Al Otro Lado brought a putative class action against the Government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, arguing that CBP's enforcement of the metering policy unlawfully withheld inspection and asylum processing from aliens who arrive at the border and seek to enter the United States. The District Court certified a class of all noncitizens who seek or will seek to access the asylum process by presenting themselves at certain ports on the U.S.-Mexico border and were or will be denied access to that process by CBP officials. It granted summary judgment for the class and declared that the Government's denial of inspection and asylum processing to class members who are in the process of arriving in the United States is unlawful regardless of the purported justification for doing so. The Government rescinded the metering policy in November 2021, shortly after the District Court entered summary judgment. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit then affirmed in relevant part, holding that an alien "arrives in the United States"—and thus must be inspected and may apply for asylum—when the alien, while standing on the Mexico side of the border, encounters a United States official at the border. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. It held that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not "arrive in the United States" by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border. The Supreme Court explained that an alien standing in Mexico does not "arrive in the United States" by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border. The INA thus neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. The Supreme Court held that the case was not moot because the lower courts' declaratory judgment still prevents the Government from using metering to manage border surges within the Ninth Circuit. Since the Government stated that it wants to resume metering if conditions require it, the dispute remains active. A ruling in the Government's favor could overturn the declaratory judgment and provide the relief it is seeking. The Supreme Court also held that the phrase "arrives in the United States" in Sections 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1) of the INA means that a person must actually enter the United States. It explained that "arrive" means to reach a destination, and "in" refers to being within the boundaries of a place. A person therefore arrives in the United States only after crossing into the country, even if they are prevented from entering further. The Court found support for this interpretation in the INA's broader context. Congress used language referring to attempted entry or arrival near the border in other provisions but did not include similar language in Sections 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1). The Court also noted that Congress could have used broader terms like "arrives at" the border but chose instead to use "arrives in the United States." The 1996 amendment changing the language from "at a land border or port of entry" to "arrives in the United States" further showed that Congress intended the current wording to require actual presence inside the country. The Supreme Court rejected the Respondents' argument that interpreting "arrives in the United States" to require physical presence would make the phrase unnecessary because Section 1158(a)(1) separately refers to aliens who are "physically present in the United States." The Court acknowledged that this surplusage argument had some merit but held that it did not outweigh the ordinary meaning of the statutory language. The Court explained that the rule against surplusage is not absolute because Congress sometimes includes overlapping provisions. Any redundancy here was only partial and had a logical explanation: the 1996 immigration reforms created expedited removal for arriving aliens and added the "arrives in" language to align asylum eligibility with that process. The Court concluded that a slight overlap in the statute was preferable to adopting an interpretation that conflicted with the ordinary meaning of the words. The Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality also supported its interpretation of the statute. The Court explained that nothing in Sections 1158(a)(1), 1225(a)(1), or 1225(a)(3) clearly shows that Congress intended asylum processing and inspections to apply to people who are still outside the United States. The Court's interpretation limits the inspection and asylum process to actions occurring within the United States. In contrast, the Respondents' interpretation would extend those provisions beyond the U.S. border by requiring the Government to process asylum applications from individuals who have not yet entered the country. The Supreme Court rejected the Respondents' remaining arguments. First, the Court held that its decision in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. foreclosed the argument that the Government’s interpretation violated the United States’ obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Court explained that the Convention's non-refoulement provision does not apply to a nation’s actions toward individuals who are outside its territory. Second, the Court rejected concerns that the Government's interpretation would encourage illegal entry. It explained that metering does not permanently prevent asylum seekers from applying. It only delays entry, while illegal entry carries legal consequences, including potential criminal penalties and restrictions on asylum eligibility and certain government benefits. In any event, policy concerns could not override the statute’s plain meaning. Finally, the Court found that the Respondents' argument that the Government might eventually block all asylum seekers from reaching a place where they could apply for asylum was based on a hypothetical future policy. The case involved a metering policy that only delayed entry to manage conditions at certain ports of entry, not a policy that permanently prevented asylum applications. The Supreme Court clarified that it was not deciding whether the Government's metering policy at the southern border was a wise or effective approach. Instead, it only decided that an alien who is still in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" under the INA. Therefore, the INA does not give such an alien the right to apply for asylum or require immigration officers to inspect them. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/6bjWqXXFY HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS: Stevens Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Stevens, Joshua Kapellen, and Jerrolyn Kapellen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC; HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS II, L.P.; and HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS III SPV, LLC, Case No. AMNDC-13085597 was removed from the Hennepin County District Court for the State of Minnesota, to the United States District Court for District of Minnesota on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03175. The Complaint asserts six claims for relief: violation of the Minnesota Residential Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 58.13–58.18; violation of the Minnesota Reverse Mortgage Act, Minn. Stat. Section 47.58; violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 325F.68–.70; violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Sections 325D.43, et seq.; declaratory relief that the fee-shifting provision is unconscionable and unenforceable; and declaratory judgment that Hometap's Option Purchase Agreements constitute mortgage loans in Minnesota, are subject to Minnesota consumer lending statutes, and that the mandatory arbitration clause, class action waiver, and jury trial waiver are invalid and unenforceable.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David D. Leishman,Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 750-8680 Email: dleishman@mcguirewoods.com HORIZON MEDICAL: Faces Desoto Contract Suit in N.Y. Sup. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit has been filed against Horizon Medical Group. The case is captioned as Kurt Desoto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated is represented v. Horizon Medical Group, P.C. d/b/a Horizon Family Medical Group, Case No. EF007069-2026 (N.Y. Sup., Filed July 6, 2026). The nature of suit states commercial -- contract. Horizon Medical Group, P.C. is an infirmary health facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Edward Mason, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 I.C. SYSTEM INC: Korlou Files Suit in D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Tristano Korlou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03160-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., July 1, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com IMPERIAL BAG & PAPER: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Frankie Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL BAG & PAPER CO. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV190855 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. 4:26-cv-06832. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Sections 17200–17210).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James E. Hart, Esq. Alejandra Gallegos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: jhart@littler.com agallegos@littler.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Jacobs Suit Transferred to D. Utah --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ella Jacobs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-05403 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00606-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Instructure Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.instructure.com/ -- is an educational technology company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310)553-3600 Facsimile: (310)553-3603 Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com IRRADIANCE MEDICAL GROUP: Lance Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Austin Lance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Irradiance Medical Group, Inc., Dermcare Management LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04908 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61829-RS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Irradiance Medical Group -- https://www.doctor-ho.com/ -- is a medical group practice located in Los Angeles, California that specializes in Dermatology and Physician Assistant (PA).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Erica W. Rutner, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (561) 245-6120 Fax: (561) 245-6213 Email: erutner@cozen.com J&A GOODS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 11 -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY GIRIFALCO, et al., v. J&A GOODS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01156-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wolson entered a scheduling order as follows: -- On or before July 14, 2026, the Parties shall meet and confer to set aside dates to hold open for depositions before the close of discovery. The Parties shall submit a letter to the Court, via email to Chambers_of_Judge_Wolson@paed.uscourts.gov, that identifies the dates that will be set aside for these depositions. -- All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed on or before July 24, 2026. -- Each Party shall serve any affirmative expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use in its case-in-chief), if any, on or before Oct. 16, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification on or before Dec. 11, 2026. -- The Defendants shall file their opposition to the motion for class certification, if any, on or before Jan. 15, 2027. J&A Goods is a home improvement company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLm3ee at no extra charge.[CC] JACKERY INC: Olomon Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Corey Olomon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JACKERY INC., Case No. 26-2-17434-2 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02330. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "markets and sells solar generators, portable power stations, and other items" and sends promotional emails to Washington residents advertising time limited sales and product discounts. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's marketing emails supposedly contain subject lines that are false or misleading because they allegedly misrepresent when advertised sales actually end and the amount of the true discount available to consumers. The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Herd, Esq. Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: +1 206 622 3150 Email: rachelherd@dwt.com laurenrainwater@dwt.com - and - Mark C. Goodman, Esq. BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 101 California Street, Suite 4100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1 415 576 3000 Facsimile: +1 415 576 3099 Email: mark.goodman@bakermckenzie.com JCRB INC: Acosta Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN CAMILO BLANCO ACOSTA and SERGIO ARDILA ORTIZ, v. JCRB INC. D/B/A BISTRO CAFE, JAN KARLO RUIZ ORTIZ, and TAMARA PEREZ FELICIANO, Case No. 1:25-cv-25762-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and authorizing court-facilitated notice to similarly situated employees. The Plaintiffs request that the Court: a. Conditionally certify the proposed FLSA collective action; b. Order the Defendants to produce the names, last known mailing addresses, last known email addresses, and telephone numbers of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who fall within the collective definition within 14 days of the date of the Court's Order; c. Approve the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form in English and Spanish; and d. Authorize a 60-day opt-in period and equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of limitations during the pendency of this motion and the notice period. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the lenient notice-stage standard by demonstrating a common employer-enforced tip-out policy and common overtime practices applicable to all servers and hourly employees at Bistro Café. The Plaintiff proposes the following tip collective definition: "All individuals who were employed by JCRB Inc. d/b/a Bistro Cafe as tipped servers at any time from Dec. 9, 2022 through Nov. 7, 2024, and who were required to distribute a portion of their tips to nontipped or ineligible employees (including runners, bartenders, baristas, and/or kitchen staff) as a condition of their employment." Additionally, the Plaintiff proposes the following overtime collective definition: Overtime Collective: "All individuals who were employed by JCRB Inc. d/b/a Bistro Cafe as hourly employees at any time from Dec. 9, 2022 through the present, who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and who were not paid all overtime compensation required by 29 U.S.C. section 207 due to the Defendants' policy of requiring off-the-clock work and/or adjusting employees' recorded punch times." The Plaintiff Blanco was employed by the Defendants as a server at Bistro Cafe from April 2022 until Nov. 7, 2024. JCRB operates Bistro Cafe. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0u7Hjw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. Patrick Brooks LaRou, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com brooks@fairlawattorney.com JP MORGAN: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Doe, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 2026-059196-SP-25 was removed from the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and For Miami-Dade County, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24587-XXXX. Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Chase for violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes sections 501.201–501.213 ("FDUTPA"), fraud, breach of contract, and misleading advertising.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Frontino, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-3075 Phone: 305.415.3000 Fax: 305.415.3001 Email: brian.frontino@morganlewis.com JR SIMPLOT COMPANY: Vega Suit Removed to E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Vega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-00663-13 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington, in and for Grant County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00278. The Plaintiffs allege the following violations of Washington's wage and hour laws: illegal timeclock rounding, second meal period violations, and failure to pay for time spent donning and doffing protective gear (a type of claim for off-the-clock work).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Heather M. Fossity, Esq. Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. Kenneth M. Rock, Esq. 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 552-2140 Facsimile: (503) 224-4518 Email: heather.fossity@ogletree.com elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com kenneth.rock@ogletree.com KOHL'S INC: Swarn Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robin Swarn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S, INC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV190405 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06768. The Complaint alleges that a Kohl's owned and operated website, https://www.kohls.com ("Website"), uses "trackers," "cookies," "pixels," "device fingerprinting," "IP addresses," and "session recording" to collect customer information for analytics and advertising purposes without consent. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Kohl's violated: the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "ECPA"); the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); Invasion of Privacy, under the California Constitution; and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca B. Durrant, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (212) 808-7551 Facsimile: (213) 547-4901 Email: rdurrant@kelleydrye.com LES SCHWAB TIRE: Gonzalez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aaron Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON, LLC., a Washington limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-17603-5 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02327. The Complaint sets forth nine causes of action against Defendant: alleged Failure to Provide Rest Periods in Violation of WAC 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; alleged Failure to Provie Meal Periods in Violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; alleged Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of RCW 49.46.130; alleged Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled in Violation of RCW 49.46.090; alleged Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave in Violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; alleged Unlawful Deductions and Rebates in Violation of RCW 49.52.060 and WAC 296-126-028; alleged Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination in Violation of RCW 49.48.010; alleged Willful Refusal to Pay Wages in Violation of RCW 49.52.050; and alleged Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Established Pay Periods in Violation of WAC 296-126-023.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara A. Blackburn, WSBA #65178 Gray Jeong, WSBA #61858 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bblackburn@littler.com gjeong@littler.com LIFE'S W.O.R.C. INC: Jean Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life's W.O.R.C., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Valerie Jean, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Life's W.O.R.C., Inc., Lifes WORC, Case No. 614304/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Life's WORC -- https://lifesworc.org/ -- provides comprehensive services and support to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and autism and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 LINDE GAS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Parra Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAS PARRA, an individual v. LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 26STCV21162 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees are aggrieved employees in that they suffered labor code and/or wage order violations: -- failure to pay minimum wages; -- failure to furnish timely and accurate itemized wage statements; -- waiting time penalties; and -- violation of the unfair competition law. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants operated a business engaged in the sale and distribution of industrial gases, welding equipment, and related supplies. The Plaintiff's primary work location was the Defendants' facility located at 2677 Signal Pkwy, Signal Hill, California. The Plaintiff typically worked 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, for a total of approximately 40 hours per week. As a Production Associate, the Plaintiff's duties included, but were not limited to, loading and unloading gas cylinders onto and from pallets, transporting and organizing inventory, and performing other physical and operational tasks in support of the defendants' production and distribution operations. LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. is a supplier of industrial, specialty & healthcare gases. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ash Bhargava, Esq. Reece Bennett, Esq. WORKRIGHT LAW, APC 3925 Tipperary Court Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Telephone: (562) 760-8803 E-Mail: ash@workrightlaw.com reece@workrightlaw.com LINE 5: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Friel Suit Due May 10, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH FRIEL, and STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Line 5, LLC et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-01866-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley entered an order as follows: 1. The case management deadlines are reestablished as follows in accordance with the parties' proposed deadlines: Fact discovery: Feb. 1, 2027 Dispositive motions and Daubert motions: May 10, 2027 Motion for class certification: May 10, 2027 2. This matter will be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference; and 3. The parties shall negotiate in good faith in their attempts to resolve this matter. Line 5 provides financing for protection products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qIf3bM at no extra charge.[CC] MACY'S INC: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Chin Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- Justin Chin, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Macy's, Inc. Enhanced Benefits Program v. Macy's, Inc.; Aon Consulting, Inc.; Hewitt Insurance Brokerage LLC; and Aon Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05673 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) is a class action under ERISA, on behalf of the Plan and a class of Plan participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiff alleges that Macy's breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a), by selecting and maintaining a supplemental health insurance program that caused the Plan and participants to pay unreasonably high premiums for the level of coverage provided, by causing the Plan and participants to pay grossly unreasonable broker compensation, and by misrepresenting the nature of the rates to participants. Macy's must restore all losses suffered by the Plan and pay Plaintiff equitable restitution. The Plaintiff further alleges that the supplemental insurance and commission arrangements constituted a series of prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a), because the Aon entities and the carriers were parties in interest who furnished services to the Plan and Aon received objectively excessive compensation, directly or indirectly, in connection therewith, says the suit. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Aon entities knowingly participated in Macy's breaches of fiduciary duty and in the prohibited transactions, and seeks disgorgement of all excessive compensation received by Aon pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). The Plaintiff also seeks prospective equitable relief requiring Macy's to conduct a competitive, conflict-free process for the Plan's supplemental health insurance program and to correct the ongoing misrepresentations in its participant-facing enrollment materials. Macy's is a national omnichannel retailer with its principal executive offices at 151 West 34th Street, New York City. Macy's operates retail stores and digital businesses under the Macy's, Bloomingdale's, and Bluemercury brands, and employs tens of thousands of individuals across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. Laura Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com lbabiak@baileyglasser.com MACY'S INC: Shaw Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Iman Shaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MACY'S, INC. and TARMO LLC, Case No. 26STCV13785 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07216. Based on those allegations, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against Defendants for: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); unjust enrichment; breach of contract; breach of express warranty; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Smith, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2901 Phone: +1 213 239 6900 Facsimile: +1 213-239-5199 Email: asmith@jenner.com - and - Madeline P. Skitzki, Esq. Sophia R. Goepfert, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Phone: +1 213 239 5100 Facsimile: +1 213 239 5199 Email: mskitzki@jenner.com sgoepfert@jenner.com MAPFRE USA: Faces McDuffie Suit Over Compromised Drivers' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN MCDUFFIE and GABRIEL SAAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. and THE COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2685CV959A (Mass. Comm., June 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, violation of Massachusetts General Laws, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated drivers stored within their network systems following a data breach between July 1 and 2, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated drivers about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. MAPFRE U.S.A. Corp. is an insurance firm based in Massachusetts. The Commerce Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MAPFRE based in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: mclark@ahdootwolfson.com - and - 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 - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: mdesanto@bm.net - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Bruno Ortega-Toledo, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-5200 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com bortega@classlawdc.com - and - Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave., South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com erittergordon@locklaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com NickC@lcllp.com Patrick@lcllp.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Amanda M. Rolon, Esq. Joseph G. Cleeman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com arolon@scott-scott.com jcleeman@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 101 Federal Street, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 203-8459 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com MARICOPA CTY, AZ: Denial of Class Certification in Houston Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of BRIAN HOUSTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PAUL PENZONE, et al., Defendants/Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV 25-0511 (Ariz. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the denial of class certification. In January 2022, Phoenix Police arrested Houston on an assault charge and transferred him to the Sheriff's custody. The Sheriff published Houston's booking photo, birthdate, and other personal information on its "Mugshot Lookup" website for about three days. A third party later scraped and republished the information online, where Houston alleged it remains permanently available. The website did not state that Houston had not been convicted or was presumed innocent. Prosecutors later dismissed the charges against him. Houston filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Sheriff and others, asserting federal and state-law claims. The district court dismissed his federal claims and declined to consider his state-law claims. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in part. After the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the Sheriff added a disclaimer to the "Mugshot Lookup" page. Houston also filed a class action in Arizona Superior Court, alleging invasion of privacy, false light, violations of Arizona's public records laws, violations of the Arizona Mugshot Act (A.R.S. Sections 44-7901 to -7902), and violations of the Arizona Constitution. The superior court dismissed his public records and Arizona Mugshot Act claims, while the parties agreed to stay the state constitutional claim pending the outcome of the federal appeal. Before the Sheriff filed an answer or discovery began, Houston moved to certify a class for his false light claim. The proposed class is defined as individuals who "were arrested and booked into the Maricopa County jail system between September 24, 2021, and September 9, 2024," and whose"“booking photograph and other personal identifying information were digitally published by the Sheriff on the Mugshot Lookup page." The superior court denied Houston's class certification motion, finding that he failed to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and (a)(3). It also found that Houston did not meet the requirements for maintaining a class action under Rule 23(b). The court explained that whether publishing each class member's mugshot and personal information placed them in a false light and caused injury would require an individual, case-by-case analysis. Houston appealed the denial of class certification, challenging the superior court's conclusion that false light claims require a case-by-case analysis. He argued that all class members suffered the same reputational harm when their mugshots and personal information were published online and that their claims could be resolved under an objective, class-wide standard. Houston claimed the court applied incorrect legal standards, improperly found that he failed to meet Rule 23's commonality, typicality, and class certification requirements, and wrongly denied him discovery. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Houston and held that the superior court correctly applied the legal standards for evaluating his false light claim. Because Houston failed to satisfy the requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court found it unnecessary to address the separate Rule 23(b) requirements. It also rejected Houston's argument that he was entitled to discovery before class certification, noting that he did not properly raise the issue and that additional discovery would not change the fact that false light claims require plaintiff-specific facts unsuitable for class treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of class certification. It awarded the Sheriff appellate costs, while clarifying that it did not decide whether Houston or others had viable claims against the Sheriff. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/65RZ2hJIG. Andrew Ivchenko, PLLC, Chandler, By Andrew Ivchenko -- aivchenkopllc@gmail.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Beverly Hills, CA, By Alex R. Straus -- astraus@milberg.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Knoxville, TN, By William A. Ladnier -- wladnier@milberg.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Kozub Kloberdanz, Scottsdale, By Daniel L. Kloberdanz -- dkloberdanz@bkl-az.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Broening Oberg Woods & Wilson, P.C., Phoenix, By Sarah L. Barnes -- slb@bowwlaw.com -- Roshin Bhangoo -- rsb@bowwlaw.com -- Counsel for Defendants/Appellees. MARKETSHEER LLC: Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANTIAGO CANIZALES, BIJAN DAVID TABIBZADA, ILEANA DAGRIN, and ALISA PEPIC, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members, Plaintiffs v. MARKETSHEER LLC, THE PENTHOUSE EXECUTIVE CLUB LLC, STEPPING OUT BALLROOM DANCE CORP., THE CHICK BISTRO, RACHEL LEE a/k/a QIUXUAN LI, KENNETH REESE, ANTIONE C. BELL, and HANNAH ARELLANO, Case No. 1:26-cv-05660 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages, unlawfully retained and misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards At and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs further allege, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, that Defendants willfully misclassified them and similarly situated employees as independent contractors to evade statutory obligations, and that they are entitled to declaratory relief, damages for unpaid wages resulting from this misclassification, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs seeks to redress a pervasive pattern of wage and hour violations, willful worker misclassification, tip misappropriation, and unlawful retaliation. The Defendants jointly operated, managed, and/or owned the nightlife, hospitality, and event enterprise where Plaintiffs were employed.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, STE 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 Facsimile: (631) 942-7399 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com MERLE NORMAN: Rousseau Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- ELISE ROUSSEAU, on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS, INC., a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21155 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and all other current and former non-exempt employees pursuant to the Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Merle operates as a retailer in the cosmetic business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Ostergaard Sues Over Property Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Garret Ostergaard, David Wade, and Joy Wade, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-01169 (E.D. Wis., July 1, 2026), is brought against the Defendant through its operation and maintenance of the Data Center, which has emitted, and continues to emit, unreasonable and excessive noise onto Plaintiffs' properties, thereby causing property damages through private nuisance and negligence. The Defendant has failed to implement adequate soundproofing equipment at its Data Center that properly absorbs, captures, and/or prevents the escape of noise, thereby resulting in the offsite emission of excessive noise beyond its property. The Defendant has failed to implement adequate acoustic barriers, shields, or walls, that absorb, mitigate, and/or prevent the escape of noise, thereby resulting in the offsite emission of excessive noise beyond its property. The Defendant has failed to implement adequate low-noise cooling systems that contain, mitigate, and/or prevent the escape of noise, thereby resulting in the offsite emission of excessive noise beyond its property, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs reside within the proposed Class Area and within 1.5 miles of the Data Center. The Defendant owns and operates a Data Center.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Lueder, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS, LLC 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 455-7676 Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com - and - Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. Trenten J. Ingell, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Phone: (313) 392-0015 Email: Sliddle@lsclassaction.com Lsheets@lsclassaction.com Rsolt@lsclassaction.com Ingell@lsclassaction.com MIDFIRST BANK: Intercepts Web Users' Communication, Dawkins Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. MIDFIRST BANK, a federally chartered savings association, Case No. 2:26-at-01139 (E.D. Cal., July 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.midfirst.com and/or www.moneymoments.com pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act. During his use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal and sensitive browsing activity, including his verbatim on-site search queries for "Debt solutions" and "debt" and communications reflecting his interest in debt-solution, debt-consolidation, and personal-finance topics. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing, the page titles, descriptive event slugs that themselves restate the content of each page, and the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, all of which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. Accordingly, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish their commercial objectives, including identity resolution, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The Defendant has done so from prior to the beginning of the class period in this case and continuously through to today and ongoingly, the suit says. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of his own browsing session. A pixel tracker, also known as a web beacon, is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions. It typically appears as a small, transparent 1x1 image or a lightweight JavaScript snippet that activates when a webpage is loaded, or a user performs a tracked action. MidFirst is a federally chartered savings association. The websites that Defendant owns, operates, and controls and provides for public access and use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com MISSOURI: Dismissal of Bedford Driver's License Suspension Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Camese Bedford, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Ashley Gildehaus; Lisa Mancini Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division; Jessica Bax; Trish Vincent; Amanda Adams; Ken Struemph Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-1206 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's order denying their interim motion for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiffs Nathan Wright, Camese Bedford, Ashley Gildehaus, and Lisa Mancini sued the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS), its Family Support Division (FSD), related state officials and agencies, and Governor Michael Parson, challenging the state's policy of suspending driver's licenses for nonpayment of child support without considering a parent's ability to pay. They alleged the policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as the fundamental right to travel, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of their driver's licenses. Missouri's DSS FSD enforces child support orders and has authority to suspend the driver's licenses of noncustodial parents who fail to comply with child support obligations and owe at least three months of support or $2,500, whichever is less. Individuals receive a notice of intent to suspend and may avoid suspension by paying the arrearage, entering a payment plan, or requesting a hearing. Before August 2023, hearings were limited to determining the obligor's identity, the amount of arrearage, and whether a payment plan existed. In August 2023, Missouri amended the law to require consideration of the obligor's ability to pay, and FSD adopted regulations establishing new procedures for administrative hearings. The Plaintiffs are noncustodial parents whose driver's licenses were suspended after they accrued more than $2,500 in unpaid child support. Bedford's license was suspended in 2017, while Gildehaus's and Mancini's were suspended in 2018. Bedford's and Gildehaus's suspensions have been stayed since 2020, and Mancini's license has since been fully restored. Because their suspensions occurred before Missouri's 2023 statutory amendments, they had no opportunity to challenge the suspensions based on their inability to pay. In 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Missouri's practice of suspending driver's licenses for nonpayment of child support violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, as well as the fundamental right to travel. They claimed the policy failed to consider whether nonpayment was willful and did not notify obligors that they could raise inability to pay as a defense. In addition to seeking a preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs requested declaratory judgments that Missouri's driver's license suspension policies and related statutes were unconstitutional, permanent injunctions prohibiting enforcement of license suspensions for unpaid child support unless Missouri implemented a constitutionally compliant process that considered ability to pay, reinstatement of the Plaintiffs' and class members' driver's licenses, and an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The case has a lengthy procedural history. In November 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied as moot without explanation. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or Younger abstention and that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. The district court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. It held that neither the Rooker-Feldman doctrine nor Younger abstention barred the lawsuit because the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims were independent of the underlying child support orders and there were no ongoing state proceedings providing an adequate opportunity to raise those claims. On the merits, the court found that the Plaintiffs stated a viable procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment but dismissed their Equal Protection and right-to-travel claims, as well as all claims against Governor Parson. As a result, only the procedural due process claim remained. In April 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an interim motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied after finding that none of the Plaintiffs had suffered an ongoing injury because Mancini's driver's license had been fully restored and Bedford's and Gildehaus's suspensions had been stayed. The court therefore concluded that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Plaintiffs acknowledged that their request for interim injunctive relief was moot following Missouri's adoption of regulations implementing the 2023 statutory amendments and challenged only the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in concluding that they lack standing. First, the Eighth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. It found that the requested declaration would not redress the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, including Gildehaus's employment-related harm. As a result, the Plaintiffs failed to establish standing to pursue declaratory relief. Second, the Eighth Circuit held that the {laintiffs' requests for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging Missouri's former driver's license suspension scheme were moot.It explained that Missouri had amended the relevant statute to require consideration of an obligor's ability to pay and had adopted implementing regulations. Because the challenged statutory scheme had been replaced, the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief regarding the prior law no longer presented a live controversy. Finally, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Plaintiffs sought reinstatement of their driver's licenses, but they did not challenge the district court's prior ruling that it lacked authority to grant that relief. Because none of the requested relief remained available, the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit did not address the Defendants' arguments regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or Younger abstention because the Plaintiffs lacked standing. For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal of the order denying their interim motion for a preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/otBWQ7gz7 NEBULA GENOMICS: Portillo GIPA Suit at Pleading Stage ----------------------------------------------------- ProPhase Labs, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2026, that in October 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, "Portillo v. Nebula Genomics, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) alleging that Nebula improperly shared customers' genetic information with third parties without written consent. The action named Nebula along with Meta Platforms, Google, and Microsoft. The dispute was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts in accordance with Nebula's Terms of Use, which mandated that claims be brought in Massachusetts. The complaint remains at the pleading stage. In addition to the motion to change venue, Nebula filed a motion to dismiss. ProPhase Labs, Inc. is a diversified diagnostics, genomics and consumer products company focused on molecular testing, genomics research services and over-the-counter health and wellness products. The company operates through multiple subsidiaries serving healthcare providers, research organizations and retail consumers in the United States. The company acquired Nebula Genomics, Inc., a privately owned personal genomics company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ProPhase Precision Medicine Inc., in August 2021. NEP GROUP INC: Lampert Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Scott Lampert and Terrence Roddy, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. NEP GROUP, INC.; BROADCAST SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 26CV007879 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01118. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts individual and class claims for Failure to Pay All Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Knowing and Intentional Failure to Comply with Itemized Employee Wage Statement Provisions; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at the Time of Termination of Employment; Failure to Reimburse/Illegal Deductions; and Violation of Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alyssa C. Malinoski, Esq. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com alyssa.malinoski@ogletree.com NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Hosein Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The case is styled as Suzanne Hosein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation d/b/a NYC Health and Hospitals, Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial (Data Breach)." NYC Health + Hospitals -- https://www.nychealthandhospitals.org/ -- is the largest municipal health care system in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS, LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (888) 421-4529 Email: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com NEW YORK: Class Certification Affirmed in Gui Wage Dispute v. DOL ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of In the Matter of Gui Zhu Chen et al., Respondents, v. Roberta Reardon, as Commissioner of Labor, Appellant, Case Nos. CV-24-2037, CV-25-0784 (N.Y. App. Div), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department, affirmed the lower court's judgment annulling the Department of Labor's dismissal of the Petitioners' Minimum Wage Act complaints and its order granting class certification. The appeals were taken from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gerald Connolly, J.), entered October 9, 2024 in Albany County, annulling the Respondent's determination dismissing the Petitioners' Minimum Wage Act complaints and from (2) an order granting class certification, entered January 15, 2025, after reargument in the related CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. Between 2018 and 2022, the Petitioners filed complaints with the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging that their employers violated the Minimum Wage Act by improperly applying the "13-hour rule" for home health aides. The DOL investigated these and other similar complaints but later closed the investigations, finding that the employees had alternative remedies through mandatory arbitration provisions in their union contracts. The Petitioners filed a combined proceeding seeking to compel the DOL to reopen its investigations, arguing that the agency's practice of closing complaints subject to mandatory arbitration was an improperly adopted rule under the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They also sought class certification of all home care aides "(i) who filed claims with DOL because they were paid for no more than 13 hours per shift when they worked 24 hours; (ii) whose unions entered into arbitration agreements with their employers covering their claims; (iii) who have not filed claims pursuant to a union arbitration award; and (iv) whose cases were closed by DOL." In October 2024, Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the DOL's decision, finding that the agency's reliance on arbitration availability constituted a rule adopted in violation of SAPA. In January 2025, after reargument, the court found that class certification was appropriate but limited the proposed class to individuals whose cases were closed by the DOL under its arbitration-based policy. However, it deferred certification pending further discovery on whether the numerosity requirement was met. The Respondent appealed both the judgment and the order. The Respondent appealed the January 2025 order but did not challenge the merits of class certification. Instead, the Respondent argued that if the October 2024 judgment was reversed, the January 2025 order should also be vacated. The Appellate Division disagreed that the October 2024 judgment should be reversed and affirmed both the judgment and order. It explained that employees are entitled to the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and that Labor Law provisions protect wage rights by imposing liability on employers who violate wage requirements. The DOL's regulations provide that minimum wage must be paid for time employees are permitted or required to work, excluding scheduled sleep and meal breaks for home health aides. The Appellate Division disagreed that the October 2024 judgment should be reversed and affirmed both the judgment and order. It explained that employees are guaranteed the statutory minimum wage for each hour worked, and Labor Law provisions provide protections against employers who fail to properly pay wages. Under DOL regulations, home health aides are generally not entitled to wages for scheduled sleep and meal breaks when they are not working during those periods. However, employers may be penalized when they fail to provide those breaks and improperly calculate wages. The Court further noted that while the DOL has authority to investigate and resolve wage disputes under the Labor Law, the agency has discretion and is not required to investigate every complaint. The DOL did not dispute that it closed the investigations because the employees had arbitration available under their union agreements. It argued, however, that the closures were an exercise of its enforcement discretion and a way to prioritize limited resources. The DOL had adopted a practice of closing complaints subject to arbitration unless they also involved retaliation claims. The Appellate Division explained that although the DOL has discretion in enforcing wage laws, any self-imposed limitation on that discretion through a rule must comply with SAPA. It therefore examined whether the DOL’s policy constituted a rule requiring formal adoption under SAPA. The Appellate Division found that the DOL's policy was applied broadly to all home care aide claims subject to arbitration without individualized review of each complaint. Although the DOL cited the complexity of investigating home care aide claims, it did not evaluate the specific facts or circumstances of each case before closing the investigations. The Court concluded that the policy effectively predetermined the outcome of future claims by home care aides with arbitration agreements and therefore constituted a rule requiring compliance with SAPA. Considering the foregoing, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court correctly found the DOL's practice of closing complaints from employees subject to arbitration, except those involving retaliation, was based on a rule that was not properly promulgated under SAPA. As a result, the DOL's determinations were subject to annulment. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and order, with costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/UVB6m0ZCh. Letitia James -- letitia.james@ag.ny.gov -- Attorney General, Albany (Frederick A. Brodie -- Frederick.Brodie@ag.ny.gov -- of counsel), for appellant. National Center for Law and Economic Justice, New York City (Carmela Huang -- huang@nclej.org -- of counsel) and The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Elizabeth Saylor -- esaylor@legal-aid.org -- of counsel), for respondents. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Patzkowsky Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rudy Patzkowsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 3:26-cv-00392 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01206-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 369-8244 Email: cburke@burke.law The Defendants are represented by: Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: ccottrell@kirkland.com NUTRIEN LTD: Book Farms Suit Transferred to D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Book Farms on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; CANPOTEX LTD.; INTERNATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSOCIATION LIMITED; AND THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE, Case No. 4:26-cv-00340 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01204-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan T. White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, LLC 19049 East Valley View Parkway, Ste. C Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 Email: ggraham@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com - and - Anthony J. O'Neill, Esq. Kenneth A. Michaels, Jr., Esq. Rezarta C. Melo, Esq. BAUCH & MICHAELS, LLC 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1115 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-427-9696 Email: aoneill@bmlawllc.com kmichaels@bmlawllc.com rmelo@bmlawllc.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Clayton A. Jones, Esq. CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 257 405 W. 58 Hwy. Raymore, MO 64083 Phone: (816) 318-4266 Fax: (816) 318-4267 Email: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven D. Soden, Esq. Tristan L. Duncan, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP - KC/GRAND 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Phone: (816) 914-6967 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: ssoden@shb.com tlduncan@shb.com NUTRIEN LTD: Carroll Suit Transferred to D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Carroll, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nutrien Ltd; Nutrien Ag Solutions; CF Industries Holdings, Inc.; Koch Inc., f/k/a Koch Industries, LLC; Koch Ag & Energy Solutions, LLC; Koch Fertilizer Wever, LLC; Koch Fertilizer, LLC; Koch Agronomic Services, LLC; Yara International ASA; Yara North America, Inc.; and The Mosaic Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-04070 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 1, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-01205-EFM-BGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Nutrien -- https://www.nutrien.com/ -- is a leading global provider of crop inputs and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Samantha M. Gupta, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Email: rwozniak@jjlmlaw.com sgupta@jjlmlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE JAGHER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 243-6335 Email: kjustice@jjlmlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Britt Marie Miller, Esq. Daniel Kelly Storino, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 782-0600 Email: bmiller@mayerbrown.com courtnotification@mayerbrown.com OMEGA MOULDING: Faces Suit Over Illegal Employment Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ AGUSTIN J. GIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMEGA MOULDING WEST LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21150 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2026) challenges the Defendant's systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and members of the Plaintiff Class as a result of employment policies, practices, and procedures as follows: -- failure to provide employees with compliant rest periods; -- failure to provide employees with compliant meal periods; -- failure to pay all hours worked, including off-the-clock work; -- failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages owed at termination; -- failure to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements and failure to maintain accurate records; and, -- unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200. Accordingly, the Defendant maintained a uniform policy of combining rest periods with the meal period into a single fifty-minute break, denying employees their separately required, paid ten-minute rest periods. Omega owns, manages, and/or operates warehouse and manufacturing facilities in California, including locations in Bell, California and Hayward, California, at which non-exempt hourly employees, including Plaintiff, were and are employed. The Defendant employs one hundred or more non-exempt hourly employees at its California facilities, including packers, warehouse workers, and other non-exempt production and manufacturing employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. 31355 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 210 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com OREGON: Plastic Pollution Act Unconstitutional, Lollicup Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOLLICUP USA, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAH FELDON, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01287-SI (D. Ore., June 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the constitutionality of Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. According to the complaint, the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it burdens an inherently national packaging market by compelling nationwide producers to disaggregate Oregon-bound product from interstate shipments, to absorb the risk of double-counting and double-payment for goods that move through but never come to rest in Oregon, and to retool packaging design, material sourcing, and pricing decisions made entirely outside Oregon to conform to an Oregon-specific classification system. Further, the Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it vests in Circular Action Alliance, a Delaware nonprofit founded and governed by the largest producers in the regulated industries, the authority to set fees, classify materials, grant and deny incentives, audit producers and assess audit costs against them, and refer producers to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for civil-penalty enforcement. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement is, by its nature, indivisible. Lollicup USA, Inc. is a provider of disposable food service and beverage products, headquartered in Rockwall, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip S. Van Der Weele, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One SW Columbia Street, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 228-3200 Facsimile: (503) 248-9085 Email: phil.vanderweele@klgates.com - and - Kevin A. Adams, Esq. Robert Schultz, Esq. MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 774-2224 Facsimile: (949) 774-2545 Email: kadams@mortensontaggart.com rschultz@mortensontaggart.com PATINA ORLANDO: Fails to Pay Cooks' Proper Wages, Huguely Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LAQUITA HUGUELY; ISMAEL GONZALEZ; BERENICE RODRIGUEZ; and JENNIFER QUINONES ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. PATINA ORLANDO, LLC; and DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES INCORPORATED, Case No. 6:26-cv-01447 (M.D. Fla., July 3, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees for 'off the-clock' pre shift preparation work, in violation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement and of minimum statutory protections. The Plaintiffs are currently employed earning hourly wages as cooks at a one of the three restaurants within the Italy Pavilion at the Epcot theme park in Lake Buena Vista, Florida jointly operated by the Defendants. The Defendants operate three jointly-operated restaurants within the Italy Pavilion at 200 Epcot Center Drive in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The Italy Pavilion Restaurants referred to herein are Tutto Italia Ristorante, Tutto Gusto, and Via Napoli Ristorante E Pizzeria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Javier Rodríguez, Esq. D. Marcus Braswell, Esq. SUGARMAN, SUSSKIND & BRASWELL P.A. 150 Alhambra Circle, Suite 725 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 529-2801 Facsimile: (305) 447-8115 E-mail: jjr@sugarmansusskind.com mbraswell@sugarmansusskind.com jess@sugarmansusskind.com PFIZER INC: Myers Class Action Moved from S.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action suit captioned as Terry Myers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. Case 1:26-cv-05683-AT (Filed June 21, 2026) was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District Of California on July 5, 2026. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05683-JMF to the proceedings. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman. The case arises from an egregious privacy violation and breach of patient trust in violation of California and Federal laws. The Defendant maintains significant operations in California including at least two wholly-owned subsidiaries located in California. The Defendant also owns and operates a number of publicly available websites. Pfizer is a global biopharmaceutical company whose business consists of discovering, developing, manufacturing, and selling prescription medicines and vaccines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 - and - Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 The Defendant is represented by; Keara M. Gordon, Esq. David Brian Farkas, Esq. DLA Piper US LLP (NY) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4632 Facsimile: (212) 884-8632 E-mail: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com david.farkas@dlapiper.com Q2 ARTIFICIAL: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCELO BRAVO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Q2 ARTIFICIAL LIFT SERVICES LLC, Case No. 7:26-cv-00251 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant is an oilfield technology and manufacturing company specializing in the design, sales, service, and engineering of downhole reciprocating rod pumps. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) -- about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the Data Breach). Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant’s misconduct. The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former employees’ private information was exactly that— private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, the Plaintiff contends. Q2 ARTIFICIAL LIFT SERVICES is a rod lift system solutions company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 e-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com QUEERTY INC: Intercepts Website Users' Communication, St. Mary Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE ST. MARY, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. QUEERTY, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-07274 (C.D. Cal., July 3, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.lgbtqnation.com, an online LGBTQ+ news publication that Defendant operates and provides for public access and use. During her use of the Website, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive personal subject matter, including pages addressing gender affirming medical care, queer spirituality and identity, and other LGBTQ+ topics, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of her communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. Accordingly, the Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what she was reading, the page titles identifying in plain English 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 Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users’ electronic communications, including the page URLs and page titles reflecting in human-readable terms what users are reading on the Website, and transmits those contents to multiple distinct third-party entities for those third parties' independent commercial use, says the suit. The Plaintiff personally used the Website during the class period and preserved an HTTP archive file (commonly known as a HAR file) of her own browsing session. Counsel caused a technical investigation to be conducted that replicated URLs and user flows presented in Plaintiff's HAR file and that documented the third-party tracking transmissions described in this Complaint. A web tracker is a tracking mechanism embedded in a website that monitors user interactions and transmits data to third-party servers. Web trackers may take the form of a transparent 1x1 image, a JavaScript snippet, or an analytics pixel that activates automatically when a webpage is loaded or when a user performs a tracked action. The Defendant owns, operates, and controls the Website and is responsible for the configuration, embedding, and deployment of the said tracking technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com RETAIL SERVICES: Aids Third Party to Collect User Data, Kent Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KENT and ROBIN SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RETAIL SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC., D/B/A TOTAL WINE & MORE, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-06419-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of aiding third parties to track and intercept the private communications of its website visitors. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed tracking technologies to its website to intercept electronic communications and transmit this information to third parties without consent. The third parties analyze and aggregate this user data across websites and time for their own purposes and financial gain. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Retail Services & Systems, Inc., doing business as Total Wine & More, is a retail company based in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com REVERSIBLE INC: Wilson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REVERSIBLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-7860 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.reversible.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on August 18, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant REVERSIBLE, INC. is a company that owns and operates the website, offering a wide selection of apparel and accessories from established fashion brands, including outerwear, knitwear, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RYDER TRANSPORTATION: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- BALTAZAR RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees, v. RYDER TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. (July 2, 2026) alleges that Defendants have: -- failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; -- failed to provide them with rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; -- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; -- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; -- failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; -- failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay; -- failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; -- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and -- failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, all other current and former non-exempt employees. Ryder is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com SAVATREE LLC: Erikson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Erikson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SavATree, LLC, Case No. 2026LA000913 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 2, 2026) is a class action complaint against SavATree for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has violated BIPA by illegally collecting and disseminating Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers and biometric information (biometrics) without informed written consent, and is understood to have done the same to countless other similarly situated individuals. In response to these concerns, the legislature enacted BIPA, which provides that a private entity may not obtain or possess a person's biometrics unless it: (1) informs that person in writing that biometrics will be collected or stored; (2) informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which such biometrics are being collected, stored and used; (3) receives a written release from the person for the collection of his or her biometrics; and (4) publishes publicly available written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics it collects or stores. SavATree provides professional landscape maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 680 N. Lake Shore Dr., Suite 110 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (786) 843-1933 E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com SHORE MEDICAL: Mastromarino Data Breach Suit Removed to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case NICOLE MASTROMARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. ATL-L-000366-26, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 25, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-07763 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment for its failure to protect the personally identifiable information and protected health information of its clients following a data breach. Shore Medical Center is an acute care hospital in Somers Point, New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric R. Fish, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Email: efish@bakerlaw.com - and - Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com sballard@bakerlaw.com SORENSON COMMUNICATIONS: Lonesky Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case NORIMA LONESKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SORENSON COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10588, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 25, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06918 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Sorenson Communications, LLC is a global language services doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nima Darouian, Esq. Nalee Xiong, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-4400 Facsimile: (424) 204-4350 Email: darouiann@ballardspahr.com xiongn@ballardspahr.com ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Faces Pamprin Labor Suit in N.Y. Sup. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, et al. The case is captioned as Tamara Pamprin, et al., on behalf of others similarly situated v. St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center et al., Case No. _________ (N.Y. Sup., July 6, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged labor and employment law violation. The Defendant includes St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, and Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. d/b/a Catholic Health. St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center is a hospital in Port Jefferson, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Sabine, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE P.C. 450 N Brand Blvd No. 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Pamprin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, et al. The case is styled as Tamara Pamprin, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. d/b/a Catholic Health, Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." St. Charles Hospital Rehabilitation Center offers both inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 STARBUCKS COFFEE: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Taghizadeh Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YASHAR TAGHIZADEH, individually, and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY; STARBUCKS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21395 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees all of the wages to which they were entitled. The complaint relates that the REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF was hired by DEFENDANTS with the job title of Store Manager on October 11, 2023. During the relevant time period, REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES regularly worked in excess of eight, and in excess of 12, hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. DEFENDANTS routinely required REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES to perform work tasks before and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or during off-the-clock meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks. However, the DEFENDANTS failed to: provide employment records; pay overtime and double time; provide rest and meal periods; properly account for gratuities; pay minimum wage; keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; pay reporting time wages; pay split shift wages; pay all wages earned on time; pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and provide notice of paid sick time and accrual, in violation of California Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF seek payment of their unpaid wages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code and any other applicable statute. Plaintiff YASHAR TAGHIZADEH was employed by STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY and STARBUCKS CORPORATION from October 11, 2023, and worked for them until March 6, 2026. The DEFENDANTS are a leading roaster, marketer, and retailer of coffee products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B.Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Joseph C. Rocha, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: 1-818-696-2306 Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com joseph@hbklawyers.com STERIGENICS U.S. LLC: Ibarra Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Victor Ibarra, an individual; Christopher Sanchez, an individual; Alvaro Luquin, an individual; and Kevin Taylor, an individual; each on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15854 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07268. The Complaint is a putative class action alleging the following causes of action: failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked and reserve standby time; failure to pay all wages owed twice per month; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide compliant meal breaks; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violation of record keeping requirements; and unlawful business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay L. Ryan, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-1801 Facsimile: (310) 556-1802 Fax Email: lryan@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com SUMMIT CAPITAL: Wride Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEA WRIDE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES OHIO, LP and SUMMIT CAPITAL PARTNERS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01410-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated for all time worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendants regularly worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks in the past three years. Defendants had a practice and policy of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees to perform work before clocking in at the start of their scheduled shifts and after clocking out at the end of their scheduled shifts, but only compensating them for their scheduled hours. Specifically, the Plaintiff would regularly arrive at Defendants' Akron, Ohio store at approximately 8:00 a.m. each day, one hour before his scheduled 9:00 a.m. clock-in time, and would perform required job duties before clocking in. Plaintiff also regularly remained at the store for two to four hours after clocking out at his scheduled 6:00 p.m. end time, continuing to perform required job duties while off the clock. In addition, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked through their scheduled unpaid meal breaks without compensation, notes the complaint. Defendants only paid Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for their scheduled hours, despite having actual or constructive knowledge that these employees were performing required work outside of scheduled hours. As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members were injured in that they did not receive all overtime compensation due to them pursuant to the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are entitled to an award of "unpaid overtime compensation" as well as "an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Shea Wride was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly salesman and then Sales Manager at Defendants' RNR Tire Express store in Akron, Ohio. Defendant Summit Capital Partners Automotive Services Ohio, LP is a subsidiary or affiliated entity of Defendant SCP that holds and operates Defendants' RNR Tire Express franchise locations in Ohio. Defendant SCP Ohio shares the same principal office address as Defendant SCP. Defendant Summit Capital Partners Automotive Services, LP ("SCP") is a private equity firm focused on, among other things, opening and operating RNR Tire Express franchise locations throughout Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com robi@ohlaborlaw.com TATTE HOLDINGS: Bunn Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tatte Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shletha Lashawn Bunn, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tatte Holdings, LLC, Tatte Bakery & Cafe, Case No. 614209/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (Labor & Employment)." Tatte Bakery and Café -- https://tattebakery.com/ -- founded in 2007, is a full service bakery and cafe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum Wage, Ruffin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TODD RUFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-13084 (D. Mass., July 3, 2026) contends that Uber has misclassified its drivers, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors when they should be classified under Massachusetts law as employees. Based on the drivers' misclassification as independent contractors, Uber has unlawfully required drivers to pay business expenses (including but not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expense, and other costs). Uber has also failed to guarantee and pay its drivers minimum wage for all hours worked and it has failed to pay overtime premiums for 10 hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime law, Mass. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He seeks recovery of damages for himself and the class, as well as declaratory and an immediate public injunction, requiring Uber to reclassify its drivers as employees in Massachusetts and comply with all wage laws. Plaintiff Ruffin is an adult resident of Raynham, Massachusetts. He has driven for Uber in Massachusetts from 2019 until 2026. The Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) is a corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Uber is a car service, which engages thousands of drivers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to transport riders. Uber is based in San Francisco, California, and it does business across the United States and extensively throughout Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay All Wages, Angeles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CRISTINA ANGELES, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2681STVC21175 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2026) alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages owed for work required to be performed in violation of California state wage and hour laws. The Defendants maintains a practice and/or policy of failing to track all minutes actually worked by Plaintiff and Class Members and failing to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all minutes worked at the proper rates of pay. The Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive wages for all time worked, including regular, overtime, and double times wages. Plaintiff is informed and believes, the suit says. The Defendants engaged, suffered, or permitted Plaintiff and Class Members to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to complete pre-shift tasks before clocking in such as opening the bank, preparing operations, logging into systems, and completing opening duties, and post-shift tasks after clocking out, such as setting the alarm, ensuring all employees have left the bank, and locking the doors, and to respond to text messages off the clock, added the suit. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, assisting bankers with customers, answering employee questions, performing customer service duties, assisting with reports, and supporting branch operations. Universal Financial, Inc. is a U.S.-based holding company that primarily operates by owning or controlling the securities of banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: jason@tomorrowlaw.com VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Moser Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Moser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW Holdings Pty Ltd.; VGW Holdings U.S., Inc.; VGW US, Inc.; VGW Malta Ltd.; VGW Games Ltd.; VGW Holdings, Ltd.; VGW Luckyland Inc.; VGW Canada; and National Sweepstakes Company LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-03180 (D. Minn., July 3, 2026) is a class action for money lost by Plaintiff through unlawful gambling in the State of Minnesota in violation of the consumer protection statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendants' Gambling websites provide, among other gambling opportunities, illegal slot machine gaming through smartphone applications that are unlicensed gambling devices under Minnesota law. In November 2025, the Minnesota Attorney General sent letters to companies such as Defendants, noting among other violations of Minnesota law, that these sites "are injurious to Minnesota residents because they enable unregulated online gambling while lacking any consumer protections or accountability to ensure players receive the cash or prizes they may win. For example, these sites lack robust age verification measures or tools to allow self-exclusion. As if the addictive nature of on-demand 24/7 available slot machine gambling was not injurious to Minnesota residents and profitable enough for Defendants, Defendants have added a feature that removes any potential doubt as to what is really going on -- the Sweeps Coin. By deceptively representing the transaction for Sweeps Coins and, thereby, the nature of its business, Defendants misrepresent the legality of its business. A user of the Gambling Websites can wager these Sweep Coins in the slot machine applications, and each time a player wagers Sweeps Coins, they and Defendants mutually agree to a gain or loss by one to the other in the amount of the value of the wager, which is under any definition of the term, but particularly under the statutory definition in Minnesota, a bet. If the player wins, they receive Sweep Coins that can be redeemed for dollars. Defendants do not even hide the gambling that takes place, the suit contends. VGW Holdings is a for-profit Australian limited Company that specializes in the development and publication of online casino-themed gambling websites, including ChumbaCasino.com, LuckyLandCasino.com, LuckyLandSlots.com, and GlobalPoker.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. Gary K. Luloff, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com gluloff@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com WAYFAIR LLC: Estreet Class Suit Seeks Over Unpaid OT Under MWHL --------------------------------------------------------------- EBONY ESTREET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAYFAIR LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02651-JKB (D. Md., July 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class Members for all time worked, resulting in unpaid overtime in violation of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked for Defendant as hourly, non-exempt employees in Defendant's warehouse and distribution centers located in Maryland. During their employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately June 2024, until approximately February 2025, as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Specifically, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly warehouse associate in Maryland. The Defendant offers consumers throughout the country home decor products for purchase via its website or mobile application.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Jay E. Krasovec, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com jkrasovec@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com WAYFAIR LLC: Underpays Warehouse Associates, Matthews Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAYFAIR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07483 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly warehouse associate and forklift operator in Romeoville, Illinois from approximately March 2025 until approximately December 2025. Wayfair LLC is an e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Jay E. Krasovec, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com jkrasovec@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com WILLOW BRIDGE: Liu Sues Over Illegal Price Coordination Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- YIYAO LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLOW BRIDGE PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC and REALPAGE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 260700624 (Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Pa., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Philadelphia Code. The complaint relates that RealPage is engaged in the sale, licensure, or provision of a service or product that involves price coordination of residential rental units. Willow Bridge used, subscribed to, contracted for, and paid for RealPage's services. These services involve price coordination, to set, recommend, or influence the rents and occupancy levels for residential rental units in Philadelphia, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' units, in violation of Philadelphia Code, asserts the complaint. It is illegal for a software provider to give real estate lessors software that collect non-public competitor data and recommend rental prices, fees, rental terms, or occupancy levels -- and illegal for a real estate lessor to pay for it, the complaint adds. RealPage provided such software, and Willow Bridge used it at its Philadelphia properties, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled, pursuant to Philadelphia Code to (1) injunctive and other equitable relief; (2) three times the value of actual damages sustained or, at their election before judgment, statutory damages of $2,000 per violation; (3) interest on actual damages; and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Yiyao Liu is an adult tenant residing at a Willow Bridge-managed residential rental unit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Defendant Willow Bridge Property Company, LLC acts as property manager for over 200,000 rental units nationwide, including rental units in Pennsylvania and this District. Defendant RealPage, Inc. provides its services--collecting non-public competitor information concerning prices, price changes, supply levels, occupancy rates, or lease or rental contract termination and renewal dates of residential rental units from two or more real estate lessors, and recommending or suggesting rental prices, fees, rental terms, or occupancy levels to a real estate lessor based on such information--to lessors of residential rental properties in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Tejada Sues Over Decline of Stock Price -------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 3:26-cv-05956 (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 [] Darrow Revolutionizing Plaintiff Litigation ---------------------------------------------- New Platform Lets Plaintiff Firms Shop for Cases and Manage Litigation Like a VC Portfolio By Christopher Patalinghug, Class Action Updates During a recent platform demo, Zachary Foreman, Solutions Architecture lead at Darrow, a pioneer of litigation exposure management, clicked through a clean dashboard of curated case tiles. Each tile represented a vetted litigation insight -- not yet a filed case, but a potential matter backed by evidence, legal analysis, and economic underwriting. "Law firms don't really have the luxury of pursuing individual cases," Foreman explained. "They have to think about things as a portfolio, and they have to therefore consider their cases across every stage of that portfolio." That insight sits at the heart of Darrow's new platform launched in May this year. The company, which combines AI with deep human expertise, is giving plaintiff firms the ability to discover violations proactively, evaluate them rigorously, and oversee their entire docket with the visibility once reserved for venture capital investors. Foreman, who works directly with law firm clients on subscription engagements and strategic use of the platform, said law firms, particularly on the plaintiff side, operate similarly to VC firms. They must identify promising opportunities in environments with less-than-ideal information and make substantial bets where returns are realized only upon successful resolution. A full-text copy of the article is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/darrow-is-revolutionizing-plaintiff from Class Action Updates (subscription required). ********* 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 ***