260720.mbx

260720.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 20, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 143 Headlines ABF FREIGHT: Gaddis Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Medina Alleges ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rucker Says ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Spurs Says ALAMO CONCRETE: Underpays Heavy Equipment Operators, Trammell Says ANDREW FOX: Arena Defendants' Bid for Attorney's Fees Denied ATLANTIC UNION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Ray" ATM COLLECTION: McKinnley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BLANK ROME: Santana Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Russo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHRISTIANA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jenkins Alleges CRASH CHAMPIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 7, 2027 DC WATER: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Potomac River Suit DENVER: Status Conference Set for July 28 DRAKMOR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Klemka Alleges DRG HOSPITALITY: Mrsic Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Work Discrimination EISEN INC: Faces Randolph Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info EL EMPERADOR ELIAS: Ortega Seeks Pre-Motion Class Cert Conference ELITE LINE: Pending Bid to Certify Class Terminated ELON MUSK: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Pampena ENVOY AIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lockett Alleges FALONI LAW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss “Sheinkopf” FDCPA Suit FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lincoln Says GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Compel Supplement Discovery Responses GLUCOBIT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Yadollahi Alleges GOLDEN TRIPOD: Toyo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Automotive Mechanics HYATT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 28, 2027 INSTRUCTURE INC: Pitts Suit Transferred From S.D. Cal. to D. Utah INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Wins Dismissal of "Johnston" ERISA Suit LEXISNEXIS RISK: Serving of Expert Reports Extend to July 30 LIR TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing Modified to June 18, 2027 MAVA HEALTHCARE: Stiles Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info MEDLINK GEORGIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, De Leon Alleges MERCOR.IO CORP: Court Extends Filing for Class Cert Bid META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Feb. 11, 2027 META PLATFORMS: Sullivan Balks at Use of Copyrighted Textbooks MGE OIL #2: Property Violates ADA, Turner Says MHM HEALTH: Lewis Bid for Equitable Tolling Tossed MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Court Denies "Barron" Certification Bid NASSAU, NY: Ct. Refuses to Certify "Myers" Police Hiring Bias Class NCAA: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Radford Suit Stayed Pending Mediation NORTHWELL HEALTH: Wins Dismissal of "Lorusso" Suit PALM BEACH TAN: Class Action Settlement in Hudson Gets Initial Nod PRESENT PHYSICAL: Bids to Certify Class Dismissed w/o Prejudice PRIMO CENTER: Faces White FLSA Suit in N.D. Ill. REGAL CINEMAS: Briefing Deadlines in Garza Extended RESURGENT CAPITAL: Cattenhead Seeks to Extend Briefing Deadlines SANTANDER BANK: Smilow Sues Over Inflated Interest Charges SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Install Trackers Without Consent, Pedroso Says SOUTH LAWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges TATY'S CLEANING: Mendoza Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers TEDDY BLAKE: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store TEND DENTAL: Discloses Web Users' Info to 3rd Party, Salley Says TODD BLANCHE: Plaintiffs Win Preliminary Injunction Bid TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says TRANS UNION: Settlement Deal in Brooks Wins Initial OK ULTRACOR INC: Faces Towns Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ********* ABF FREIGHT: Gaddis Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDRICK GADDIS, ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09681-CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte application to vacate, or alternatively continue, class certification dates and deadlines. As the Court's decision on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("MJOP") is still pending, it is unclear which of the Plaintiffs' causes of action will remain, which affects the Plaintiffs' abilities to properly conduct the necessary discovery and prepare for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek ex parte relief here, because the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification was May 19, 2026. Unfortunately, due to a calendaring error, the Plaintiffs' counsel inadvertently failed to calendar this deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the Court find Plaintiffs acted diligently, that any fault on the Plaintiffs was due to excusable neglect, and grant Plaintiffs' ex parte application. ABF is an American national less-than-truckload (LTL) freight carrier. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZJ6YvZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harut Voskanyan, Esq. VOSKANYAN LAW FIRM, PC. 303 N Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 200 Burbank, CA 91502 Telephone: (213) 296-2681 Facsimile: (213) 296-2691 E-mail: HVoskanyan@Voskanyanlaw.com - and - Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2211 Facsimile: (310) 322-2252 The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. Thomas Cochrane, Esq. Johnny Little, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON, AND FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com tcochrane@scopelitis.com jlittle@scopelitis.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Medina Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04659 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") stored within Defendant's information network. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI were safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. AdaptHealth, LLC operates as a full-service home medical equipment company. The Company offers ocean home health products, sleep therapy supplies, bed lifts, seat lift chairs, bath aids, CPAP machines, ventilators, and breast pumps. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 559-6072 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rucker Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL RUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04684 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. On information and belief, 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' PII. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this class action individually and on behalf of all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. AdaptHealth Corp. distributes home medical equipment, medical supplies, and home and related services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Spurs Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANICE SPURS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04691 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information and protected health information stored within Defendant's information network. On no later than June 15, 2026, unauthorized third party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and PHI, including marketing and selling them. The data breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept there, says the suit. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI were safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, the suit alleges. AdaptHealth Corp. is a national provider of home medical equipment, respiratory therapy, diabetes supplies, sleep therapy equipment, mobility products, and related in-home healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com ALAMO CONCRETE: Underpays Heavy Equipment Operators, Trammell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DYLAN TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALAMO CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04102-OLG (W.D. Tex., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Trammell was employed by Alamo as a heavy equipment operator from approximately October 2025 until May 2026 in San Antonio, Texas. Alamo Concrete Products Company is a manufacturer of concrete products, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ANDREW FOX: Arena Defendants' Bid for Attorney's Fees Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Finkelstein v. Fox, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jesse M. Furman denied without prejudice a motion for attorneys fees and nontaxable expenses filed by the Arena Defendants. The Arena Defendants had sought fees under Rules 11 and 54(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the PSLRA following the June 23, 2026 dismissal of all claims against them. The court held that its June 23 order did not resolve all claims against all parties and therefore was not a final judgment triggering the Rule 54(d)(2) fee deadline. The court granted the Arena Defendants alternative request and denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after entry of final judgment on all claims against all defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate the underlying motion. The case was docketed as 24-CV-4056 (JMF), and the order was dated July 9, 2026. The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a) and 54(b), noting that a judgment triggering the Rule 54(d)(2) fee deadline must resolve the claims or rights and liabilities of all parties unless the court directs otherwise. The court cited the Second Circuit summary order in Livecchi v. Continental Securities Corp. and the Southern District decision in Lin v. Yuri Sushi, Inc. in support of its reasoning that partial dismissal orders do not constitute final judgments for fee-motion purposes. A Copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FNHJYD from PacerMonitor.com ATLANTIC UNION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in "Ray" -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brian Ray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Union Bank, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25cv132 (E.D. Va.), Senior Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in an Opinion. Plaintiff opened a checking account with Defendant in August 2021 and received a Regulation E Opt-In Form describing Defendant's overdraft policies, as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.17(b). Plaintiff alleged the form failed to adequately describe the timing or method of assessing overdraft fees and brought this putative class action seeking to certify a class of accountholders who opted into the overdraft program and were assessed a fee after February 19, 2024. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing or, alternatively, for summary judgment. On standing, the Court found Plaintiff satisfied all three elements. Plaintiff showed a concrete injury through overdraft fees and a redressable claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693m. On causation, the Court noted that a plaintiff must have read and been confused by a bank's notice to establish standing. Plaintiff testified he reviewed the disclosure during the sign-up process and remained confused about the difference between an available balance and a current balance and about when Defendant charged overdraft fees. The Court held this testimony established a causal link between the notice and Plaintiff's overdrafts, and therefore denied the motion to dismiss. On class certification, the Court first rejected Defendant's waiver argument. Defendant had inserted a class action waiver into Plaintiff's account agreement in 2024 through an amendment provision permitting the bank to change any term of the agreement upon notice. The Court found this provision ambiguous under Virginia law as to whether it permitted wholly new terms or only modifications of existing ones, and construed the ambiguity against Defendant as drafter. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not waive his right to bring a class action through continued use of his account. The Court also rejected Defendant's argument that class members lacked standing, finding no evidence that a large percentage of absent members had traceability problems, and noting that the class could later exclude members whose lack of standing became apparent. The class nonetheless failed Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. The Court explained that Defendant did not provide a uniform opt-in notice to all class members. From at least July 2020 to November 21, 2021, Defendant's notice stated that an overdraft occurs when the accountholder does not have enough money to cover a transaction. On November 22, 2021, Defendant revised the notice to state that an overdraft occurs when the current balance is insufficient at the time of settlement. Because Plaintiff's claim centered on the notice's failure to explain how Defendant determined available funds and when overdrafts were assessed, the revised language potentially addressed those complaints for later class members. The Court therefore held that common legal questions would require distinct merits inquiries depending on which version of the notice a class member received, defeating predominance. The Court denied class certification on that basis and did not reach Defendant's remaining Rule 23 arguments. On summary judgment, the Court examined Regulation E's safe harbor provision under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693m(d), which shields financial institutions from liability for disclosure failures when they use an appropriate model clause issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Court found that Defendant's Opt-In Form used language identical to the CFPB's Model Form A-9. The Court reasoned that an appropriate clause is one that does not misstate facts or inaccurately represent the overdraft service, and found Defendant's form did not misrepresent its methodology or misstate when it assessed fees. The Court further declined to consider new deficiencies Plaintiff raised for the first time in his summary judgment opposition, holding a party may not amend a complaint through such argument. The Court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Court concluded by denying the motion to dismiss, denying the motion for class certification, and granting summary judgment for Defendant. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 10, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rH7IMN from PacerMonitor.com ATM COLLECTION: McKinnley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ ISAIAH MCKINNLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATM COLLECTION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05691 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.atmcollection.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. ATM Collection Inc. offers a range of apparel for both men and women, including essentials like t-shirts, hoodies, and knitwear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BLANK ROME: Santana Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY SANTANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLANK ROME LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04661 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of Plaintiff and other current, former, and prospective clients. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current, former, and prospective clients. But, Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On May 21, 2026, the Defendant experienced an incident in which an unauthorized third party caused Defendant to upload files containing sensitive private information to an external Google Drive account. On information and belief, 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' private information. The Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Blank Rome LLP is a law firm with 16 offices that offers comprehensive legal and advocacy services to clients operating in the United States and around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITIZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (215) 967-8799 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.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 - 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 CALIFORNIA NATURAL: Russo Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN RUSSO, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA NATURAL LIVING, INC., d/b/a CALIFORNIABABY.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05696 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) alleges that Defendant's website, www.californiababy.com is not equally accessible to Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. On multiple occasions in February, April, and June 2026, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website to browse and purchase baby skincare and personal care products, including the California Baby Calendula Cream and California Baby Bug + Sun SPF 30+ Mineral Sunscreen. Despite Defendant's public representations of being "Reviewed by Allyant for Accessibility" and its commitment to safe, inclusive products, the Plaintiff was repeatedly denied meaningful access due to widespread accessibility barriers, including missing alternative text on product images and linked images, missing and empty form labels, broken ARIA controls that prevented size selection, and empty links that announced no destination or purpose to screen-reader users, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to compel Defendant to remediate its website, implement accessibility monitoring, and adopt policies that ensure blind and visually impaired users can access its services with independence, dignity, and equity. California Natural Living, Inc. operates the website that offers baby skincare and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. OSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 CHRISTIANA CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jenkins Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DEANDREA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; and CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00806-UNA (D. Del., July 6, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jenkins was employed by the Defendants as a medical assistant. Christiana Care Health System Inc. was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com - and - Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com CRASH CHAMPIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 7, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY FREUDENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CRASH CHAMPIONS LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-00621-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Aug. 3,2026 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Aug. 31, 2026 Class certification discovery completed by: Apr. 7, 2027 Deadline to file motion for class certification and any dispositive motion addressing the plaintiff's individual claims: June 7, 2027 Deadline to file opposition to class July 7, 2027 certification and any dispositive motion addressing the plaintiff's individual claims: If this case settles, counsel shall file a Notice of Settlement as soon as possible and in accordance with Judge Lin's Standing Order for All Civil Cases. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the Court prompt notice of settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems appropriate. Crash Champions provides automotive collision repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NbRd6P at no extra charge.[CC] DC WATER: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Potomac River Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jack Miller, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority d/b/a DC Water, Defendant, Civil Action No. DKC 26-989 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and struck the language regarding the reservation of right. The case remains a putative, uncertified class action. The case arose from a putative class action brought against DC Water after a section of the Potomac Interceptor collapsed on January 19, 2026, near Clara Barton Parkway and I-495 in Montgomery County, Maryland, releasing roughly 243 million gallons of untreated wastewater into the Potomac River. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, nuisance, and trespass, contending DC Water knew since 2011 that the pipeline segment needed repair but failed to act. Individual plaintiffs alleged lost use of boats and marina memberships, noxious odors, and displacement from a nearby home, while business plaintiffs alleged declines in bookings, slip occupancy, and revenue. Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint incorporating information from subsequently filed enforcement actions by the United States and the Maryland Department of the Environment, adding a new plaintiff, L.J.K. Outdoors, LLC, and expanding the geographic scope of the proposed class. DC Water did not object to incorporating the new factual information but opposed adding the plaintiff, expanding the class geography, and retaining a reservation of the right to bring a future Clean Water Act claim. The court found no bad faith in the proposed amendments, noting Plaintiffs' effort to conform class geography to state health advisories did not reflect an attempt to evade dismissal. On futility, the court held L.J.K. Outdoors adequately alleged standing, having pleaded a 47%—a loss of approximately $15,000 as of mid April—compared to the same period in 2025revenue decline and customer communications directly linking cancellations to the sewage discharge, sufficient to establish injury in fact and causation under the liberal futility standard. Whether the company could have replaced lost bookings went to the extent rather than the existence of injury and did not defeat standing. The court also rejected DC Water's challenge to the expanded class geography as premature, noting Virginia and Maryland issued advisories and shellfish closures extending to the proposed boundary from Offutt Island to the Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge , and that class certification questions are ordinarily resolved on a more developed record. Regarding the reservation of the right to add a Clean Water Act claim later, the court found Plaintiffs had not waived that right through the parties' prior stipulation, but held the reservation language was immaterial and impertinent under Rule 12(f) because Plaintiffs would need to seek leave to amend again regardless of the reservation. The court A copy of the Court's decision dated July 09, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4I8p23 from PacerMonitor.com DENVER: Status Conference Set for July 28 ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Denver Sheriffs Department, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-JLK-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kane entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for order to approve class certification notice plan is granted, and the Plaintiffs' class notice plan is approved. The Plaintiffs' motion for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d) is likewise granted. The Plaintiffs are therefore ordered to submit an estimated cost breakdown plan, and a Status Conference is set for July 28, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed notice forms effectively communicate all the necessary information, including the procedure to opt out of the class action. The Notice Plan attempts to personally deliver the Long-Form Notice to each class member. In addition to that direct mailing, the Plan incorporates the posting of the Short-Form Notice in places the class members would see the information. The Court granted class certification on March 8, 2024, certifying the following classes: Primary Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver County Jails (combined facilities) and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. Denver County Jail Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver County Jail and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. Denver Downtown Jail Class "All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Van Cise-Simonet Downtown Detention Center and tested positive for the coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus again while detained." The class period commenced on Jan. 1, 2020, and ended Feb. 1, 2022. The Defendant is a criminal justice agency based in Denver, Colorado, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yk14mz at no extra charge.[CC] DRAKMOR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Klemka Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ SHANNON KLEMKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAKMOR INC.; SHERYL R. MORSON; and JOHN DRAKOPOULOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-08268 (D.N.J., July 6, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Klemka was employed by the Defendants as a server. Drakmor Inc. operates a restaurant in Flemington, New Jersey, known as both Flemington Diner and Flemington-Raritan Diner. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 DRG HOSPITALITY: Mrsic Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Work Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ AGATHA MRSIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRG HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. d/b/a DELMONICO'S, and DENNIS TURCINOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05557 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law including failure to pay overtime wages, illegal deductions from gratuities, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, late payment of wages, and discrimination. Plaintiff Mrsic was employed by the Defendants as a server from August 2023 through September 2025. DRG Hospitality Group, Inc., doing business as Delmonico's, is a restaurant owner and operator in Manhattan, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 EISEN INC: Faces Randolph Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EISEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05555 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. 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 on or about December 12, 2025. 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. Eisen, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 Facsimile: (310) 364-5201 Email: jason@wukolaw.com EL EMPERADOR ELIAS: Ortega Seeks Pre-Motion Class Cert Conference ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Olivos Ortega v. El Emperador Elias Restaurant et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05222-RER-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a pre-motion conference in anticipation of Plaintiff's motion for class certification under the Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23. At the conference Plaintiffs expect to address the following relief: 1. Certification of a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all non-exempt workers (including dishwashers, food preparers, cooks, and servers) ("Class Members") employed by the Defendants at any time between Jan. 16, 2016 [a date which is six years and 228 days prior to the commencement of this action] and the present (the "Class Period"); and 2. Designation of the Plaintiff Oliverio Olivios Ortega as class representative, and appointment of Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel in this matter. The class action is superior to other methods of reaching a fair and efficient adjudication of the ongoing controversy, considering that the putative class members almost exclusively of immigrant workers who are afraid of taking active steps to take an action due to their fear of direct or indirect retaliation as well as doing so could harm their employment, future employment and future efforts to secure employment. The Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of himself only, alleging claims for unpaid overtime wages under federal and New York law for between eight and sixteen overtime hours per week, and failure to furnish a wage notice at time of hire, and wage statements with each payment of wages. El Emperador offers classic Dominican dishes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsIOmT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com ELITE LINE: Pending Bid to Certify Class Terminated --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw v. Elite Line Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01084 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 12, 2021), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order granitng the joint request to hold in abeyance the court's ruling: The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively terminate the pending motion to certify class, motion to strike, and findings and recommendations, which will be re-activated, if necessary. Within ten (10) days of the resolution of the state court proceedings, the parties shall file a status report indicating whether the motions are moot or whether the parties request that the Court issue a ruling on the68 findings and recommendations and objections thereto. Given the parties' notice of settlement, response to the Court's October 21, 2025 order, and joint status report indicating that the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is set before the state court. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. ELS is an airports & air services company located in Carrollton, Texas.[CC] ELON MUSK: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Pampena -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIUSEPPE PAMPENA, et al., v. ELON MUSK, Case No. 3:22-cv-05937-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order granting Musk's motion for judgment as a matter of law for Musk's May 17 tweet and denying the remainder of the motion. The Court also denies Musk's motion to decertify the class. The Court grants both Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest and motion for approval of class notice of verdict and claims administration procedure. Because the Plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence for a key element of their case, the Court grants Musk's motion for a judgment as a matter of law for the May 17 tweet. Musk's motion to decertify class comes after the Court entered a final judgment on April 3, 2026. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs properly invoked the fraud-on-the-market presumption and Musk failed to present evidence that could have rebutted it. Thus, the Court concludes that Musk's basis for the motion is fundamentally flawed. The Plaintiffs represent all sellers of Twitter stock between May 13 and October 4. They brought claims based on Musk's two tweets, a separate statement made on May 16, and a purported months-long scheme by Musk to artificially depress Twitter's share price. After a two-week trial and more than three days of deliberations, a jury unanimously found that Musk's two tweets were false, and that the investing public was damaged. The Defendant is a businessman and former public official who is the CEO and largest shareholder of Tesla and SpaceX. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NpKgM9 at no extra charge.[CC] ENVOY AIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lockett Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- WARNESHA LOCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENVOY AIR INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21302 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Lockett was employed by the Defendants as staff. Envoy Air Inc. is in the airline industry business which includes air transportation over regular routes and on regular schedules. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Brandley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Dr., Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradely@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com FALONI LAW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss “Sheinkopf” FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Gittie Sheinkopf, a/k/a Gittie Kohn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Faloni Law Group, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-14092 (GC) (RLS) (D.N.J.), Judge Georgette Castner of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in a Memorandum Opinion. Plaintiff, a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, allegedly incurred a debt from Synchrony Bank. LVNV Funding, LLC acquired the debt upon default and hired Faloni Law Group, LLC to collect it. Faloni filed a state court lawsuit alleging Plaintiff owed 385.83 dollars to Synchrony Bank, but the Bill of Sale attached to that complaint never mentioned Synchrony Bank. Instead, the chain of title showed Barclays Bank Delaware sold the debt to Resurgent Acquisitions LLC, which sold it to LVNV. Plaintiff could not recall owning a Barclays account in default and became suspicious of the collection attempt. A Faloni representative could not explain the discrepancy and allegedly told Plaintiff to pay or the lawsuit would continue. The state court dismissed the collection suit without prejudice. Plaintiff alleged the ordeal cost her hours reviewing records, interfered with her work and family responsibilities, lowered her credit score, delayed other financial commitments, and caused significant anxiety affecting her sleep and focus. Plaintiff brought putative class claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging violations of Section 1692e, Section 1692f, and Section 1692d. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On standing, the Court found Plaintiff alleged more than mere confusion. Analogizing to fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court held Plaintiff's downstream harms, including the reduced credit score, lost time, delayed payments, and anxiety, established concrete injury for the Section 1692e and Section 1692f claims. The Court distinguished Rohl v. Professional Finance Co. and Endres v. UHG I LLC, noting Plaintiff, unlike those plaintiffs, alleged credit harm and other financial consequences. For the Section 1692d claim, the Court adopted intrusion upon seclusion as the common law analogue and found the same allegations constituted a substantial burden on Plaintiff's everyday life sufficient to confer standing. On the merits, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that Plaintiff needed evidence at the pleading stage showing the creditor was not the assignee. Citing Ramos v. LVNV Funding, LLC, a prior case against the same defendants, the Court held Plaintiff adequately alleged inaccuracies in the debt's chain of title sufficient to survive dismissal, regardless of Defendants' intent, since the FDCPA imposes strict liability. The Court noted Plaintiff's favorable outcome in the underlying state court suit made her misrepresentation allegations more plausible. The Court also rejected Defendants' reliance on cases involving improper service, finding them factually distinct from a collection action premised on an erroneous entitlement to the debt. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing Plaintiff's FDCPA claims to proceed. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at is https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wCO4MO from PacerMonitor.com FUTUREDONTICS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lincoln Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LARIESHA LINCOLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUTUREDONTICS, LLC d/b/a 1-800-DENTIST, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-24625-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2026) allege violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that 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. The Defendant's misconduct – failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' private information, failing to timely detect the data breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the data breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the private information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach – caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States. Futuredontics, Inc. provides direct marketing services to the dental, medical, legal, and vision industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Compel Supplement Discovery Responses ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE HARPER, COLE ULRICH, PAUL AIELLO, DALE BLAND, DANIEL DAVIS, PAUL NORTHUP, RYAN VOLMERT, and SEAN JOSEPH ZIMMETT, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12907-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to compel supplemental discovery responses. In the absence of a persuasive argument from GM about its need for the information in question, and in light of the plaintiffs' demonstration of the extraordinary burden of production, the discovery sought is out of proportion to its likely benefit, as compliance with the discovery requests would pose an undue burden upon the plaintiffs. The Court is convinced that the substantial burden of producing the requested information far outweighs the likely benefit that may result. The plaintiffs in this long-running putative class action dispute allege that the defendant General Motors, LLC sold vehicles with defective transmissions in the 2015 through 2018 model years. The Defendant is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLf6XS at no extra charge.[CC] GLUCOBIT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Yadollahi Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN YADOLLAHI, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLUCOBIT, INC., d/b/a REFRAME, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03725-AT (N.D. Ga., July 2, 2026) arises out of Defendant Glucobit's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the California Attorney General's website, Glucobit exposed the personally identifiable information and protected health information belonging to Plaintiff and potentially several million Class members (the "Data Breach"). The complaint alleges that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information with which it was entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of a known third party and failing to include precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. Glucobit, Inc. d/b/a Reframe is a health technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com GOLDEN TRIPOD: Toyo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Automotive Mechanics --------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS TOYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN TRIPOD DYNASTY TRADING INC. d/b/a MASPETH DISCOUNT TIRE and JUNBO LUAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03932 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an automotive mechanic from on or about March 8, 2025, until on or about December 31, 2025. Golden Tripod Dynasty Trading Inc., doing business as Maspeth Discount Tire, is a provider of vehicle and tire repair services, located in Maspeth, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com HYATT CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Jan. 28, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD ANTHONY YBARRA, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION dba HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-04101-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting the stipulation to continue class certification and discovery related deadlines. 1. All Class Certification and discovery related deadlines are continued by 150 days as follows: a. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures deadline is continued to Nov. 2, 2026; b. The Defendant's expert disclosures deadline is continued to Dec. 28, 2026; c. Deadline for Motion for Class Certification is continued to Jan. 28, 2027; d. The Defendant's opposition is continued to March 11, 2027 e. Reply to Motion for Class Certification is April 8, 2027. Hyatt provides short-term accommodations for overnight stay. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gg8IRc at no extra charge.[CC] INSTRUCTURE INC: Pitts Suit Transferred From S.D. Cal. to D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case JAQUEL PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-02977, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to the United States District Court for the District of Utah on June 30, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00604-RJS to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment for its failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of its clients following a data breach. Instructure, Inc. is a cloud-based education technology company, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 Email: mreese@reesellp.com INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Wins Dismissal of "Johnston" ERISA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Sheri Johnston, Autumn Widdoes, Sara Hurst, Philip Winters, Lezette Rusch, and Bryant Thacker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.; The Board of Directors Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.; and The Intermountain Healthcare Benefits Administration Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00073-JNP-DAO (D. Utah) Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in a Memorandum Decision and Order. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under Section 409 and Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in a prohibited transaction. Defendants served as fiduciaries of a 401(k) Plan and a 403(b) Plan, which held over 6 billion dollars and over 300 million dollars in assets respectively as of 2023. The 401(k) Plan included the Principal Stability Fund, a synthetic guaranteed investment contract that Plaintiffs alleged underperformed comparable stable value investments by an average of nearly 45% during the class period. Plaintiffs asserted three claims: breach of the duty of prudence for retaining the Principal Stability Fund despite allegedly cheaper and better performing alternatives, failure to monitor the Benefits Administration Committee, and a prohibited transaction arising from the Plans arrangement with recordkeeper T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc. On the prudence claim, the court applied the Tenth Circuit standard from Matney v. Barrick Gold of North America, which requires a plaintiff to identify a meaningful benchmark reflecting similar investment strategies, objectives, and risk profiles. The court found that most of the fourteen comparator funds Plaintiffs cited were not synthetic guaranteed investment contracts and therefore carried structurally different risk profiles and crediting rates, making them inadequate benchmarks. Only two comparators, tied to the Pomona and Gemba Group plans, qualified as synthetic guaranteed investment contracts. Even accepting those as meaningful benchmarks, the court held the supporting data was too sparse, consisting of only one or two data points per fund, to plausibly show that Defendants decision making process was flawed. The duty to monitor claim was dismissed as derivative of the prudence claim. On the prohibited transaction claim, the court rejected Defendants argument that the claim was time barred, finding the Amended Complaint did not establish on its face that Plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the violation more than three years before filing suit, consistent with Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma. Applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, the court held that a prohibited transaction claim requires only that a fiduciary caused a plan to engage in a transaction furnishing services between the plan and a party in interest. The court nonetheless dismissed this claim because Plaintiffs allegations were circular: T. Rowe Price could not have been a party in interest at the moment it first contracted to provide recordkeeping services, since it was not yet providing services to the Plans at that time. Relying on the Tenth Circuit's decision in Ramos v. Banner Health, the court held that a prior relationship must exist before a service provider becomes a party in interest, and that fee and revenue share payments made under the resulting valid contract did not violate ERISA. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V35apz from PacerMonitor.com LEXISNEXIS RISK: Serving of Expert Reports Extend to July 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kohama v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01422 (S.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for extension of time to file. The Defendant's deadline to serve expert reports is extended to July 30, 2026. The class certification briefing schedule otherwise remains unchanged, with Plaintiff's opening brief due on July 13, 2026. Defendant's opposition due on August 10, 2026, and any reply due on August 24, 2026. The parties are reminded to consult and follow the Chambers Rules of the U.S. District Judge in their filings. The parties shall contact Judge White's chambers within three (3) days of receiving the Court's order on class certification to schedule a further case management conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian J. White on July 6, 2026. The nature of suit states Fair Credit Reporting Act. LexisNexis is a global data and analytics company.[CC] LIR TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Filing Modified to June 18, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA JOHNSON, et al., On behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. LIR TRANSPORTATION LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00264-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Griesbach entered an order granting the stipulated motion to amend the deadlines in the court's scheduling order. The Court orders the schedule be modified as follows: Amendments to the pleadings without leave Oct. 23, 2026 of court: The Plaintiffs' motion for collective action Oct. 23, 2026 notice: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for collective action certification: June 18, 2027 The Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosure: July 16, 2027 The Defendants' expert witness disclosure: Aug. 13, 2027 Close of discovery: Nov. 12, 2027 LIR specializes in Non-Emergency Medical Transport (NEMT) and 24/7 taxi services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UaVkIB at no extra charge.[CC] MAVA HEALTHCARE: Stiles Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- KIRSTEN STILES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAVA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, LLC d/b/a MAVA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-05311 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect personal identifiable information and protected health information of its current and former patients, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant lost control over private data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former patients' PII/PHI, says the suit. On information and belief, 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' PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit alleges. MAVA Healthcare System, LLC d/b/a MAVA Behavioral Health provides comprehensive mental healthcare to patients in Texas, Florida, and Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camile Alvarez, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: calvarez@straussborrelli.com MEDLINK GEORGIA: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, De Leon Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDLINK GEORGIA, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00081-TES (M.D. Ga., July 6, 2026) allege violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached their duties of care to safeguard and protect the private information entrusted to them by Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant adopted inadequate safeguards to protect its private information from unauthorized disclosure and failed to adopt industry-wide standards set forth above in its supposed protection of the private information. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful actions and inactions, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information has been compromised. The Plaintiff and Class Members have had their privacy rights violated and are now exposed to a heightened significant risk of identity theft and credit fraud for the remainder of their lifetimes. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now spend time and money on prophylactic measures, such as increased monitoring of their personal and financial accounts and the purchase of credit monitoring services, to protect themselves from future loss. The Plaintiff and Class Members have also lost the value of their Private Information, as well as the benefit of their bargains with Defendant. Medlink Georgia, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization offers medical care for acute illness and chronic diseases, immunizations, pregnancy testing, occupational therapy, drug testing, vision, and hearing screening. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon J. Zinns, Esq. ZINNS LAW, LLC 4243 Dunwoody Club Drive Suite 104 Atlanta, Georgia 30350 Telephone: (404) 882-9002 Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com MERCOR.IO CORP: Court Extends Filing for Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heidi L. White, et al., v. Mercor.io Corporation et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00143-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Hendrix entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline to move for class certification. The Court will reset the deadline to move for class certification after it resolves the Defendant's pending motion to set aside the Clerk's entry of default. Mercor.Io is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DbQNwg at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Feb. 11, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E. H., et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04784-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting the stipulation to revise case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for substantial completion of Sept. 30, 2026 document productions: Completion of fact discovery: Jan. 29, 2027 Motion for class certification and the Feb. 11, 2027 Plaintiffs' class expert reports: Opposition to class certification and April 27, 2027 Meta's class expert rebuttal reports: Reply in support of class certification July 9, 2027 and the Plaintiffs' expert reply reports: Deadline to file omnibus sealing July 30, 2027 applications for all class certification briefing and supporting materials: Hearing on class certification: Aug. 4, 2027 In connection with the case schedule, the filing party shall file all documents provisionally under seal in their entirety, along with a one-page interim sealing motion that states that the reason for sealing will be presented in a forthcoming sealing application. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UCS9fE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Previn Warren, Esq. Abigail Burman, Esq. Nelson Drake, Esq. Lance Oliver, Esq. Max Gruetzmacher, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 401 9th Street NW Suite 630 Washington DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 386-9610 E-mail: pwarren@motleyrice.com aburman@motleyrice.com ndrake@motleyrice.com loliver@motleyrice.com mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com - and - Elizabeth Kramer, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama St. San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: elizabeth@eko.law The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com META PLATFORMS: Sullivan Balks at Use of Copyrighted Textbooks -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SULLIVAN, KENNETH S. SALADIN, ZVI BODIE, ALAN J. MARCUS, KEVIN T. PATTON, LION DEN INC., and DANA LOEWY individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC. and MARK ZUCKERBERG, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-06793 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is a class action brought by Plaintiffs and other textbook authors whose copyrighted textbooks Meta copied, reproduced, distributed, and used without authorization, to build and train its generative large language model known as Llama in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. According to the complaint, without license, consent, credit, or compensation to the textbook authors, Meta obtained Plaintiffs' copyrighted textbooks from pirated "shadow library" sources, reproduced them, distributed them to others while torrenting them, removed copyright-management information from them, and used them to train its Llama models. Each Plaintiff assigned exclusive publication and distribution rights under the Copyright Act to his or her respective publisher, subject to the publisher's contractual obligation to pay royalties to the Plaintiff based on the publisher's exploitation of those exclusive rights. Accordingly, each Plaintiff is the beneficial owner of copyright in his or her work and is entitled to institute an action for infringement of the copyright, says the suit. The Plaintiffs assert claims for direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and removal and distribution of copyright-management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, on behalf of themselves and a class of textbook authors. Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randolph Gaw, Esq. GAW | POE LLP One Embarcadero Ctr., Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-7451 E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com - and - David Slarskey, Esq. Adam Hollander, Esq. Deepa Devanathan, Esq. Phillip Gasperetti, Esq. SLARSKEY LLC 767 Third Ave, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 658-0661 E-mail: dslarskey@slarskey.com ahollander@slarskey.com ddevanathan@slarskey.com pgasperetti@slarskey.com - and - Brenda Ulrich, Esq. Zick Rubin, Esq. ARCHSTONE LAW GROUP, P.C. Riverside Center 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400 Newton, MA 02466 Telephone: (781) 314-0100 E-mail: bulrich@archstonelaw.com zrubin@archstonelaw.com MGE OIL #2: Property Violates ADA, Turner Says ---------------------------------------------- STEPHEN TURNER, an individual, Plaintiff v. MGE OIL #2, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07283 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2026) is a class action seeking damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California statutes against Defendant. This is a civil rights action by Plaintiff Turner, a "physically disabled" as that term is defined by all applicable California and United States laws, for discrimination at a building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, and/or surrounding business complex in Santa Fe Springs, California. MGE Oil #2, LLC is the owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the property. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the property and encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with -- if not outright denied -- his ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered at the facility. To the extent known by Plaintiff, the barriers at the property included, but are not limited to restrooms at the property that are not properly configured for use by persons with disabilities in multiple respects, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Tsao, Esq. 2ASCENSION LAW GROUP 12341 Newport Ave., Suite B200 Tustin, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 783-4220 Facsimile: (888) 505-1033 E-mail: pamela.tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com MHM HEALTH: Lewis Bid for Equitable Tolling Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Pitlyk entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that equitable tolling is warranted under the circumstances of this case. The Plaintiff failed to establish that putative plaintiffs have been diligently pursuing their rights to bring FLSA actions against the Defendant. The Plaintiff also failed to establish that some extraordinary circumstance prevented putative plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, the Court says. On Feb. 24, 2022, the Plaintiff Penny Lewis filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to properly pay employees following a December 2021 ransomware attack that caused a temporary outage of the Defendant's timekeeping software, Kronos. MHM provides medical and behavioral healthcare services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfubbD at no extra charge.[CC] MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Court Denies "Barron" Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ryan Barron, Andrew Szklarek, Grant Echols and Daniel Grieves, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. micromobility.com Inc., Salvatore Palella, Skrill USA Inc., Lorenzo Pellegrino, Jonathan Hannestad, Giulio Profumo, Justin Guiliano and Binary Financial, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-cv-4703 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Plaintiffs motion for class certification and Plaintiffs’ letter-motion to strike defendants’ expert reports in an Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs asserted that they were victims of a pump-and-dump scheme involving a now-defunct crypto token called the Helbiz Coin. They brought claims under the sections 9, 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Commodities Exchange Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and common law theories. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class solely as to the RICO claim, covering purchasers of Helbiz Coin from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2023. According to the Court, Helbiz sought to escape SEC scrutiny by claiming the coin was issued by a Singapore entity, HMSP, which Plaintiffs described as a sham foreign front. Plaintiffs alleged the ICO was actually run by Helbiz officers out of New York City, and that Defendants submitted false and fabricated statements to the SEC and to cryptocurrency exchanges to obtain listings for the coin. The Court first rejected Defendants arguments framed as Article III standing challenges, finding they instead concerned class definition and claims administration, not constitutional standing. Turning to Rule 23(a), the Court found Plaintiffs satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. The class was found to consist of thousands of coin wallets, and common questions existed regarding whether Defendants engaged in a RICO enterprise and misappropriated ICO proceeds. However, the Court found Plaintiffs did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority. Plaintiffs did not explain how generalized proof could show domestic injury to class members, many of whom purchased Helbiz Coin on foreign exchanges and held it in wallets located abroad. Citing RJR Nabisco v. European Community and Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, the Court explained that domestic injury requires a case-specific analysis of the circumstances surrounding each purchase and each coin wallet. The Court found that plaintiffs declarations themselves demonstrated the buyer-specific nature of the inquiry, since named plaintiffs purchased coins on exchanges based in the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Panama and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The Court concluded this individualized analysis would overwhelm questions common to the class. Separately, the Court found Plaintiffs proposed method for proving RICO causation and damages was barred by the RICO Amendment in Section 1964(c), which bars a private RICO plaintiff from relying on conduct that would have been actionable as securities fraud. The Court found Plaintiffs theory, including reliance on a hypothetical SEC "Fair Fund," was anchored in the unlawful sale of securities to class members and therefore could not be shown through generalized, classwide proof. The Court also found the expert report of John B. Bulgozdy, offered to support classwide causation and damages, was speculative and contained improper legal conclusions, and therefore could not establish that causation was susceptible to generalized proof. Because Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), the Court denied class certification as to Defendants Skrill USA Inc. and Lorenzo Pellegrino. The Court separately denied Plaintiffs letter-motion to strike Defendants expert reports as untimely, finding Plaintiffs had known of Defendants noncompliance with expert disclosure rules for two months before raising the issue and could not now claim surprise or prejudice. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 08, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5hJjTM from PacerMonitor.com NASSAU, NY: Ct. Refuses to Certify "Myers" Police Hiring Bias Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jhisaiah Myers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Nassau, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-CV-7023-SJB-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in a Memorandum and Order. The Plaintiff, a Black applicant for a Nassau County police officer position who was disqualified during the background investigation phase, sought to certify both an injunctive relief class and a damages class of Black and Hispanic applicants disqualified in that phase. The Court held that the Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief and that neither proposed class satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23, so the motion was denied. The Plaintiff began the Nassau County hiring process in 2018, passed the written exam and physical agility test, and was disqualified during the background investigation for exhibiting what the County called disrespect for the process of law, based on thirteen tickets in his motor vehicle record. His appeals were rejected. He brought equal protection claims under Section 1983 and disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under New York State Human Rights Law Section 296, alleging that the Commissioners who vote on disqualification receive minimal training and rely on vague criteria susceptible to racial bias. On standing, the Court found that the Plaintiff's stated wish to become a Nassau County officer did not amount to a plausible allegation that he intended to reapply, so he failed to show the likelihood of future injury needed for injunctive or declaratory relief. That deficiency doomed the proposed injunctive relief class, though the Court proceeded to analyze the remaining Rule 23 elements in case the standing defect could later be cured by a substitute class representative. The Court found ascertainability and numerosity satisfied, and held the Plaintiff could represent both Black and Hispanic applicants because the challenged practices were shown to affect both groups through the same underlying data. On commonality, the Court separated its analysis of the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. For disparate impact, the Court applied a two-part test requiring a common mode of exercising discretion and significant proof of a general policy of discrimination. It found the first element met, since a small group of Commissioners exercised discretion under shared guidelines for every applicant. But the Plaintiff failed the second element: his evidence identified only two instances of similarly situated comparators, offered no class-wide statistical showing, and made no causal link between the challenged practices and the disqualifications of other applicants. The Court noted the Plaintiff compounded this problem by seeking to include applicants disqualified for conduct such as threatening violence, failing drug tests, or lying on applications, without arguing those disqualifications were themselves discriminatory. For disparate treatment, proceeding under the pattern-or-practice method, the Court found the Plaintiff's anecdotal evidence, limited to a handful of comparators, insufficient to establish a pattern or practice absent strong statistical evidence, particularly given that the County had submitted unrebutted background reports for 23 Black and 43 Hispanic applicants disqualified for legitimate, race-neutral reasons. Because the Plaintiff could not satisfy commonality, the Court held his damages class motion was necessarily defeated by Rule 23(b)(3)'s more demanding predominance requirement, and declined to certify an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4), since individualized questions about each applicant's qualifications would undermine any judicial economy from class treatment. On the parties' joint motion to seal, the Court granted sealing of personally identifiable information such as names, birthdates, and Social Security numbers of nonparties, and sealed criminal histories of non-party declarants and counsel's phone numbers. However, the Court denied wholesale sealing of the Plaintiff's own background investigation report and application materials, since the parties publicly discussed and relied on that document's contents in their briefs, and such broad sealing was not narrowly tailored. The Court directed the parties to file a public version with narrower redactions by July 17, 2026. A copy of the Court's copy is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MiaNyM from PacerMonitor.com NCAA: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add John Does 15–19 as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must file the amended complaint — in the form of the proposed pleading at ECF No. 456-1 — within seven days of this order. The defendants must respond within 14 days after service of the amended complaint. Because the court has denied motions to dismiss the identical claims, the court expects that the parties can agree that the responsive pleadings can be answers to avoid wasteful motions on issues better addressed at summary judgment. This resolves ECF No. 443. The Defendant does not contend bad faith, and there is none: the plaintiffs have followed the court's directives at every step, including dismissing Doe II in reliance on the court’s consolidation plan. Further, the Defendant has not shown prejudice or a strong showing on any other Foman factor, so the presumption in favor of leave controls. Does 1–3 filed this putative class action on March 11, 2022, alleging that the coaches fostered a sexualized, hostile team environment — through conduct that included nudity, sexualized skits, vulgar and belittling taunts, and retaliation against players who resisted — and that USF knew of the conduct and covered it up, in violation of Title IX, the California Education Code, and state tort law. University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San Francisco, California. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fOWTkN at no extra charge.[CC] NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Radford Suit Stayed Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN RADFORD, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., a Corporation; NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC., a Corporation; NEXSTAR MEDIA INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-08118-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order as follows: 1. The provisions of the Parties' Stipulation are adopted into this Order. 2. This matter is stayed pending the Parties' private mediation on Sept. 9, 2026; 3. The Court modifies its Oct. 23, 2025 Scheduling Order as follows: -- Initial expert reports due by Dec. 18, 2026; -- Rebuttal reports due by Jan. 14, 2027; -- Motion for class certification due by Feb. 19, 2027; -- Opposition to motion for class certification due by Mar. 19, 2027; -- Reply to motion for class certification due by Apr. 16, 2027; and -- Motion for class certification hearing set for May 11, 2027 at 10:00 AM. 4. The Parties will file a post-mediation status report by Oct. 9, 2026, to apprise the Court of the outcome of mediation Nexstar owns America's largest local television broadcasting group. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mTbPLy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Jeffrey S. Herman, Esq. Sergio J. Puche, Esq. Trevor G. Moran, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 The Defendants are represented by: Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq. Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 NORTHWELL HEALTH: Wins Dismissal of "Lorusso" Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as William Lorusso, Margaret Gurlides, Linda Moriarty, Richard Seaberg, Gary Leonard, Carol Vorperian, Nicholas Campagnola, Jerold Scherer, Denise Bevilacqua, and Karen Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northwell Health Pension Plan, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Inc., Pension Committee, and ABC Pension Committees 1-20, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-2785(JS)(AYS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields's Report and Recommendation in full and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in its entirety. Plaintiffs commenced this ERISA action on April 15, 2024, alleging Defendant failed to properly notify plan participants before the 1999 conversion of North Shore University Hospital's pension plan into a cash balance plan. The FAC asserted seven claims for violations of ERISA Section 204(h) notice requirements, Section 102 disclosure requirements, Section 105 benefits statement requirements, and breach of fiduciary duty under Section 404(a). Judge Shields recommended dismissal of all claims on the merits and as untimely. Plaintiffs raised six objections, and Defendant opposed them, arguing the FAC relied on conclusory allegations and that all claims were time-barred. The court overruled each objection. On the Section 204(h) claim, the court held Defendant's December 1998 letter and subsequent summary plan description (SPD) satisfied the notice requirements applicable at the time, since the law then required only an effective date and an understandable summary of the amendment, not disclosure of a significant benefit reduction. The court declined to consider Plaintiffs' new reliance on Frommert v. Conkright, since that argument was not raised before the magistrate judge. On the Section 102 claim, the court found the SPD adequately disclosed wear-away by repeatedly warning participants that benefits under the new plan might not meet or exceed those under the prior formula, tracking the disclosures upheld in Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase. The court rejected Plaintiffs' comparison to Osberg v. Foot Locker, finding the SPD here, unlike in Osberg, did not affirmatively assure participants they would be better off. On the Section 404(a) fiduciary duty claim, the court held Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Defendant made misleading statements comparable to those in Osberg, since the FAC itself analyzed the formulas Plaintiffs claimed were concealed. The Section 105 claim also failed because the FAC did not allege any Plaintiff was entitled to a protected benefit that was omitted from their statements, nor when any deficient statement was received. On timeliness, the court found all claims untimely regardless of which limitations period applied, since the FAC lacked factual allegations showing when or how any Plaintiff discovered the alleged violations, and the SPD's plain language undercut any fraud or concealment theory. Finally, the court denied Plaintiffs leave to amend the FAC, noting Plaintiffs had long been aware of its deficiencies, through Defendant's 2024 pre-motion letter, yet failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 15.1(a) by submitting a proposed amended pleading. Accordingly, the court overruled Plaintiffs' objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, denied leave to amend, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Defendant and close the case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wOt7Lx from PacerMonitor.com PALM BEACH TAN: Class Action Settlement in Hudson Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX HUDSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PALM BEACH TAN, INC., and ARCHER MALMO, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00486-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Osteen entered an order that the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted as follows: -- The court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class. -- Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Settlement Class as follows: "All persons within the Class Period sent a Palm Beach Tan Text Message after that phone number sent an inbound text message Stop Request." -- The court preliminarily appoints Lemberg Law as Settlement Class Counsel. -- The court preliminarily appoints Plaintiff Alex Hudson as the Class Representative. -- A final approval hearing shall be held before this court on Dec. 29, 2026. Palm is a chain of indoor tanning facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QUqs8x at no extra charge.[CC] PRESENT PHYSICAL: Bids to Certify Class Dismissed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Bryan Webb, v. Present Physical Immediate Confinement, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00167-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Wood entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Petitioner's motions to certify class. The Magistrate Judge has directed service of the section 2241 Petition, and these motions concern a question that the Court has answered by ordering service of the Petition: Petitioner can proceed with this challenge to the United States Parole Commission's decision under section 2241. Additionally, the Court denies as premature the Petitioner's motion for summary judgment. Respondent had yet to respond to the section 2241 petition at the time the Petitioner filed this motion. Finally, the Court denies as moot the Petitioner's motion to retain jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PspYqj at no extra charge.[CC] PRIMO CENTER: Faces White FLSA Suit in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMO CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07687 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a house manager beginning on or about November 7, 2025. Primo Center for Women and Children is a provider of family shelter and permanent supportive housing, integrated physical, dental, and mental health care, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Chasidy K. Clark, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 Email: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com nvolheim@atlaslawcenter.com cclark@atlaslawcenter.com REGAL CINEMAS: Briefing Deadlines in Garza Extended --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORFIRIO GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities Case No. 2:25-cv-01941-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order granting the stipulated motion to extend briefing deadlines. The Court orders the parties to submit briefing consistent with the following schedule: The Plaintiff's opposition to the July 13, 2026 Defendant's motion for summary judgment and to strike class allegations: The Defendant's reply in support of the July 27, 2026 Defendant's motion for summary judgment and to strike class allegations: The Plaintiff's reply in support of the July 27, 2026 Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Plaintiff shall re-note his motion for class certification to July 27, 2026. And the Defendant shall re-note its motion for summary judgment or to strike class allegations to July 27, 2026. Regal owns and operates movie theaters. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZhICmg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Hamley, Esq. Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, 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 The Defendants are represented by: Patrick M. Madden, Esq. Ryan J. Groshong, Esq. Benjamin Moore, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 288-0110 E-mail: patrick.madden@arnoldporter.com ryan.groshong@arnoldporter.com ben.moore@arnoldporter.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Cattenhead Seeks to Extend Briefing Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA COLE CATTENHEAD, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-05583-HDV-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her ex parte application to extend class certification briefing deadlines by 60 days. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the class certification briefing schedule by 60 days as follows: Deadline Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 8, 2026 Opposition: Oct. 6, 2026 Reply: Oct. 20, 2026 The Plaintiff has served written discovery directed to issues relevant to class certification, but the Defendant's responses have not yet been received. The Plaintiff also intends to depose the Defendant's corporate representative after receiving those discovery responses, the suit says. Because discovery relevant to class certification remains outstanding and fact discovery will continue for several months, the requested extension will promote judicial efficiency by allowing the parties to complete targeted discovery before briefing class certification. This will provide the Court with a more complete evidentiary record while leaving the remainder of the scheduling order intact, the suit adds. Resurgent provides financial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sq2bBH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Sibilia, Esq. OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER Oceanside, CA 92049 Telephone: (760) 666-1151 Facsimile: (818) 698-0300 E-mail: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com The Defendant is represented by: Brett Goodman, Esq. Ben Mohandesi, Esq. YU | MOHANDESI LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (858) 757-7262 Facsimile: (213) 377-5501 E-mail: bgoodman@yumollp.com bmohandesi@yumollp.com SANTANDER BANK: Smilow Sues Over Inflated Interest Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- MARK SMILOW and DEVORAH SMILOW, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. SANTANDER BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04002 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) is a federal class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of all persons or entities who entered into a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) Agreement with Santander and/or had a HELOC that was administered by Santander between at least October 1, 2013, through the present. The Plaintiffs assert that they were damaged through Santander's pattern of conduct that fraudulently, repeatedly, and unlawfully inflated the amount of interest owed and billed in violation of the terms of the HELOCs, Truth in Lending Act, Article 22-A of the General Business Law, and common law. According to the complaint, Defendant Santander facilitated this scheme by dunning HELOC customers with deceptive documentation that inflated and overbilled interest charges and misapplied the payment of those charges to customers' accounts with the expectation that customers, Plaintiffs and the Class, would blindly pay their bills as a rubber stamp, without even noticing the fraudulent billing. Notwithstanding the legal requirements obligating Defendant to timely lower the index and corresponding index charges upon a reduction in the index as published by the Money Rates table of The Wall Street Journal, the Defendant dunned the members of the Class with an inflated index and corresponding inflated interest charges by sending documentation it knew would not be scrutinized by Plaintiffs and the Class members at the level required to uncover Defendant's deceit. The Defendant was, therefore, able to reap the rewards of this crafty deception by receiving millions of dollars more than what was otherwise owed in interest had the interest charges been computed and described correctly on the documentation, says the suit. Santander Bank is an American bank operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Elizabeth Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Install Trackers Without Consent, Pedroso Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAIS PEDROSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21131 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a website https://sherwinwilliams.com. When users visit the Website, the Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, Ensighten Tag Management, Segment, Gigya, CqO, Gbqofs and Adobe (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. The Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, without their consent, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again, says the suit. The Sherwin-Williams Company manufactures, distributes, and sells paints, coatings, and related products. The Company's products are sold to professional, industrial, commercial, and retail customers primarily in North and South America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented byL Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com SOUTH LAWN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- SERGIO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH LAWN SERVICE, INC.; ABELINO MARTINEZ; and OSCAR DOMINGEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24614-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a landscaper. South Lawn Service, Inc. provides a variety of lawn and garden services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip F. McManus, Esq. Suhaill M. Morales, Esq. SMM LAW P.A. 7900 NW 155 Street, Suite 203 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Telephone: (305) 518-7026 Email: smorales@smmlawfirm.com philip@smmlawfirm.com TATY'S CLEANING: Mendoza Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Housekeepers ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY PEREZ MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TATY'S CLEANING QUEENS CORP., d/b/a "TATY'S CLEANING QUEENS," and TATIANE TOZZI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01891 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as a housekeeper from approximately November 1, 2025, through May 26, 2026. Taty's Cleaning Queens Corp., doing business as Taty's Cleaning Queens, is a residential and commercial cleaning service company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com TEDDY BLAKE: Powell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEDDY BLAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05530 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.teddyblake.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Teddy Blake, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. Jon Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com TEND DENTAL: Discloses Web Users' Info to 3rd Party, Salley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS SALLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEND DENTAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03925 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's interception and disclosure of its patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including but not limited to Google and Mixpanel, without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed Google's and Mixpanel's tracking technologies on its website to track and collect users' web browsing activities for advertising and marketing purposes. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals suffered damages, says the suit. Tend Dental, Inc. is a clinical provider of dentistry, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Eleanor R. Grasso, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com egrasso@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com TODD BLANCHE: Plaintiffs Win Preliminary Injunction Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARTER COE, by and through his parent and next friend, CAROLINE COE; REED ROE, by and through his parent and next friend, RILEY ROE; NICOLE NOE, by and through his parent and next friend, NORMAN NOE; KARL KOE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated; and JAY DOE, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, v. TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; NYU LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM; NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS; and NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, a division of New York University, Case No. 1:26-cv-04641-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue relief; and -- Preliminary relief is appropriate on a class-wide basis for the following Class and NYU Subclass: a. The Class: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at a healthcare institution located in New York City, including NYU Langone Hospitals (and any other NYU entity) and Mount Sinai Health System." b. The NYU Subclass: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at NYU Langone Hospitals or any other NYU entity." In addition, the deadline for NYU Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' Complaint is adjourned to Aug. 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 68. On June 14, 2026, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and provisional class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34ZV2g at no extra charge.[CC] TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MELODY MATHIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04656 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) is an action seeking to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries that Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and tens of thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. As a result of the Defendant's failures to prevent—and to timely detect—the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional distress, says the suit. Tower Administrative Services, Inc. is a privately held administrative services firm that administers insurance premium payments and customer service for bi-weekly mortgage acceleration programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Clancy Boylan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PHILADELPHIA, PLLC 2005 Market Street, 6th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 446-9795 Email: cboylan@forthepeople.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. Jayden Mougin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com jayden.mougin@forthepeople.com TRANS UNION: Settlement Deal in Brooks Wins Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marston entered a judgement granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The final settlement hearing is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2026. The Court finds that the settlement agreement is reasonable in light of the best possible recovery and attendant risks of continued litigation. As this case was filed in January 2022, the Plaintiff has incurred substantial risk by litigating this case for more than four years and reviewing more than fifteen thousand pages of discovery documents produced by Trans Union. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated Section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") when it sold third-party creditors consumer reports that erroneously showed the consumers had filed for bankruptcy. Following two years of class discovery and briefing and oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court granted certification of a single class of individuals seeking relief under Section 1681e of the FCRA: "All natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom Defendant sold a consumer report to a third party from Jan. 6, 2020 to Jan. 31, 2023 which included a bankruptcy remark on a tradeline, but with no reference to a bankruptcy record in the public record section of the same report, and for whom there is no government-held public record of a bankruptcy filing within ten (10) years prior to the date of the report." Trans Union will create an $8,310,000.00 Settlement Fund that will be used to provide monetary relief to settlement class members, to pay class counsel's fees and expenses, to pay a class representative service award, and to pay the costs of notice and administration of the settlement. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5bVHJR at no extra charge.[CC] ULTRACOR INC: Faces Towns Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTRACOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05558 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.ultracor.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ultracor, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***