260721.mbx

260721.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 21, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 144 Headlines 1063 FIRST AVE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL 3695 ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA 4-POPPCAL INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Applegate Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Zamora Alleges ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Whitaker Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Bid OK'd ALLIED WASTE: Cortes Class Action Stayed AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Lyster Suit AMERESCO INC: Gold Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL APPLE INC: Benavidez Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. APPLE INC: Faces Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ASP ISOTOPES: Securities Class Action Stayed Amid Settlement Talks ASTRANA HEALTH: Coleman Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code AUTOLIV INC: ARC Airbag Inflator Products Liability MDL Ongoing BALLAJ: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 26 BELIEVE HOME: Gibson Suit Seeks OT Premium Wages Under FLSA BOBBY E. WRIGHT: Apolito Seeks to Recover Proper Wages BROADCAST MUSIC: Winfrey Must Submit Amended Complaint by August 3 CARAWAY HOMES: Shivum Sues Over Cookware Products' Misleading Ads CHOBANI LLC: Falsely Labels Yogurt's Protein Content, Pitre Says CONAIR LLC: Faces Tompkins Suit Over Defective Grill Brushes COSTCO WHOLESALE: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Barton Says CRATE & BARREL: Removes Iniguez Suit to W.D. Wash. CURBSURE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sigurdson Due Jan. 14, 2027 CYBERPOWER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says DECKERS OUTDOOR: Fails to Return Illegal Subject Tariffs, Suit Says EARNIN US1: Faces Taylor Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info GENERAL MILLS: Thomas Sues Over Cereal Products' False Ads GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Captures Facial Biometrics, Trevino Suit Says HOME DEPOT: Wright Sues Over Unauthorized Sale of Consumers' Info HOMEBODY INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Rent-Fee Suit INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gomez Alleges JACKERY INC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind JINON CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Alleges KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Harris Class Action Suit Over ALPR System KONICA MINOLTA: Appeal Filed in Cezus Case in Third Cir. KONTOOR US: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Tlaib Says KROGER CO: Curtis Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Compensation LAKESHORE LEARNING: Flores Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA LIVING SPACES: Betanco PAGA Claims Allowed to Proceed in Court LLT MANAGEMENT: Faces Bynum Suit Over Unsafe Talc Products MACYS.COM LLC: Faces Caban Class Action Suit Over Spam E-mails MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Krenning Alleges MEGAN HOLDINGS: Mundy Sues Over False Business Statements MEODED PAINTS: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Five-Year Eligibility Rule NEW YORK, NY: Farahmand Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Interns NEW YORK: Lawrence Sues Over Improper Denial of Medicaid Benefits ONLY BEAN: Ting Sues Over Snacks' Misleading Protein Labels PHELPS SECURITY: Cates Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages PRIME HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hamachai Says PURPOSECARE OF ILLINOIS: Vanderhei Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages SECUR SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jackson Says SERVICE EXPERTS: Parrott Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices SMART & FINAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morse Alleges ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Prampin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages STHRN HOSPITALITY: Ballow Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA SWIFTX INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code TRANSCENDIA INC: Franklin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA TRAVEL + LEISURE: Spooner Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages TROP INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wendlandt Says WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Cray Balks at Pension Plan Administration WHOOP INC: Sanderson Loses Bid for Summary Judgment X CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Denial of Class Certification Bid YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Ellert Suit ********* 1063 FIRST AVE: Lopez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARLON WALDEMAR CARDONA LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. 1063 FIRST AVE RESTAURANT CORP. and 188 AVE A TAKE OUT FOOD CORP., TARIK FALLOUS, Case No. 1:26-cv-05745 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt persons including cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, porters, bussers, food runners, counterpersons, cashiers and waiters employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the complaint. The Defendants own and operate Au Za'atar, a Lebanese restaurant with two locations in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 3695 ENTERTAINMENT: Baker Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTWION BAKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 3695 ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a THEORY RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, TREBA and ANDERSON, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-03783-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Baker resides in this District and is a former employee of Defendants, having been employed by Defendants from approximately October 2023 to November 2025. Opt-In Plaintiff Alexis Carter resides in this District and is a current employee of Defendants, having been employed by Defendants from August 1, 2022, to the present. 3695 ENTERTAINMENT, INC., d/b/a THEORY RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, is a restaurant based in Georgia. Anderson is an owner, operator, and chief executive officer of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra R. Carmon, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: acarmon@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com 4-POPPCAL INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON HERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. 4-POPPCAL INC. dba POPEYES CHICKEN AND BISCUITS, a California corporation; MUKHTIAR SINGH MAROK, an individual and California citizen; INDERJOT KAUR MAROK, an individual and California citizen; AJIT KAUR CHEEMA, an individual and California citizen; RUBINDER SINGH MAROK, an individual and California citizen; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21439 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) is a class action complaint for damages resulting from Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay due wages at termination, failure to pay wages during employment, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements under the Labor Code. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days on a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually worked. 4-Poppcal is a franchise operator that manages multiple Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A Professional Law Corporation 801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 229-0114 E-mail:orobinson@rdwlaw.com mrobinson@rdwlaw.com ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Applegate Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CADE APPLEGATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC. and CENTERPOINTE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26CV-55863, was removed from the Tennessee Chancery Court of Williamson County for the Twenty-First Judicial District at Franklin to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on July 14, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned Case 3:26-cv-00974 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the failure of the Defendants to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is a Delaware-based corporation with principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn H. Walker, Esq. Taylor M. Sample, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 21 Platform Way South, Suite 3500 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 Email: kwalker@bassberry.com taylor.sample@bassberry.com - and - Christopher A. Wiech, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 459-0050 Facsimile: (404) 459-5734 Email: cwiech@bakerlaw.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Zamora Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- URIEL ZAMORA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04732-CMR (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and other and protected health information, resulting in a devastating data breach. On June 15, 2026, a threat actor infiltrated AdaptHealth's data systems and cloud-based business applications including electronic health record system portals, patient management systems and document storage platforms, and exfiltrated information including patients' PII and PHI, and a stored password file associated with insurance billing. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard PII and PHI entrusted to Defendant for authorized use only, and Defendant's obligation to properly store and transfer said information. The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered tangible injuries, including the diminished value of their PII and PHI, lost time and opportunity costs from mitigating the data breach consequences, loss of the benefit of their bargain with Defendant to maintain their PII and PHI in a reasonably protected manner, and the actual misuse of their compromised data, such as increased spam communications, says the suit. AdaptHealth is a network of medical equipment companies providing home healthcare solutions across 48 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. Olivia E. Pizzo, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com olivia.pizzo@woodslaw.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Whitaker Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JANETTE WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04725 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a cyber incident. On July 2, 2026, the Defendant reported a data breach to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. This suit arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the data breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. AdaptHealth Corp. is a full-service medical equipment and services company supporting patients in 669 locations across 48 states in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ALAIR ENTERPRISES: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Bid OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kowitz v. Alair Enterprises USA Inc.. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01235 (N.D. Tex., Filed April 16, 2026), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file. The July 15, 2026 deadline under Local Rule 23.2 for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended and suspended. The parties shall meet and confer within fourteen (14) days of the Courts ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint) and shall submit a joint proposed schedule, including class-certification briefing, within fourteen (14) days thereafter. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Alair is engaged in custom home building and large-scale renovation.[CC] ALLIED WASTE: Cortes Class Action Stayed ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO CORTES, v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00138-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the Parties' request to stay this action and denying the Defendant's motion to stay as moot. Accordingly, the parties' joint stipulation to stay this action is granted. The Defendant's motion to stay is administratively terminated, to be reactivated if necessary. All pending dates and deadlines are vacated, to be reset at a later date if the court deems it necessary after the court's ruling on the motion for class certification in the Lopez action. The parties shall file a joint status report within six (6) months from the date of entry of this order, and every 90 days thereafter, informing this court as to the status of the proceedings in the Lopez action. In addition, the parties shall file a notice informing the court that an order has issued resolving the anticipated motion for class certification in the Lopez action within 14 days from the issuance of such order. The court concludes that the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay here is minimal in light of the parties' agreement embodied in their stipulation. On June 8, 2026, the defendant filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of an earlier filed action, Juan Lopez v. Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-CV-00822-TLN-AC. On June 30, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay this action pending the court's ruling on the plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification in the Lopez action. Allied Waste provides collection, recycling, and disposal services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CbCicI at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Lyster Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAYLA LYSTER, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-09423-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the fourth through eighth causes of action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 20. Prior to the July 10, 2026, conference, the parties must meet and confer and be prepared to discuss at the conference their plan for completing discovery. If Plaintiff wishes to seek leave to amend the Complaint to address the deficiencies described in this opinion with respect to the class-wide discrimination claims, she should be prepared to discuss that request at the July 10, 2026, conference. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of disability discrimination premised on a failure to accommodate. At this early stage, however, the temporal proximity between employees' protected conduct and Defendant's adverse action is sufficient to plead the requisite causal connection to state a claim for retaliation. The Plaintiff Cayla Lyster, an employee of Amazon.com Services, LLC, claims that the Defendant's policy for monitoring and disciplining absences discriminates against employees with disabilities. The Defendant operates hundreds of logistics facilities, including over thirty in New York State. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7dbMY at no extra charge.[CC] AMERESCO INC: Gold Class Suit Seeks to Recover Wages Under NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- DEAN GOLD, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. AMERESCO, INC., Case No. 158419/2026 (N.Y. Sup., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiff was statutorily and/or contractually entitled to receive for work he performed on various publicly financed projects (Public Works Projects) subject to contracts between Ameresco and various New York government entities including but not limited to the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, Department of Corrections, Long Island Power Authority, New York State Office of General Services, Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, New York State Office of Mental Health, New York City Department Of Citywide Administrative Services, and other New York public agencies. According to the complaint, Ameresco was required to pay or ensure that Plaintiffs were paid at the applicable prevailing wage and benefit rates for the type of trade work they performed. The Plaintiffs allege that Ameresco, misclassified its workers, in an effort to avoid paying the statutory prevailing wage and benefit rates. The Plaintiffs performed various types of construction trade work on the Public Works Projects including boiler repair and replacement; lighting and ventilation improvements, and; installing and maintaining photovoltaic systems (solar panels) throughout New York State. Ameresco is an energy infrastructure solutions provider offering new technology and ESPC funding for public and private energy development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.co APPLE INC: Benavidez Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DIMARI BENAVIDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 26CV497219, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 14, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case 5:26-cv-07250 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the misleading advertisements on the safety and privacy of the Safari web browser pre-installed on Apple devices and the failure of Apple to provide the privacy protections to consumers. The Plaintiff is seeking remedies on behalf of the putative class for damages, disgorgement of all profits that Apple obtained from Plaintiff and the Class members, declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, an order requiring Apple to engage in a corrective advertising campaign and attorneys' fees and costs. Apple, Inc. is an American corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. The Defendant is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Email: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com - and - Alexander L. Schultz, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 332-4800 Email: aschultz@cov.com APPLE INC: Faces Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- KELLY TURNER, on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., a California Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21192 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have (1) failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods; (2) failed to provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; (5) failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; (6) failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; (7) failed to pay them overtime wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; (8) failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; and (9) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements. Based on these alleged violations, the Plaintiff now brings this class action to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and related relief on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee since approximately January 2021. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley 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 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com ASP ISOTOPES: Securities Class Action Stayed Amid Settlement Talks ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASP Isotopes Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2026, that on April 3, 2026, following a mediation in which the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve all claims in the case, subject to the court's approval, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to stay an amended securities action. The latter requires the parties to file a stipulation of settlement and for the plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement within 60 days of the court's approval of the stipulation, and on April 6, 2026, the court approved it. On Dec. 4, 2024, a purported stockholder of the company filed a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of its securities between Oct. 30, 2024, and Nov. 26, 2024, against ASP Isotopes Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al." Case No. 1:24-cv-09253. It alleges that the company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer made materially misleading or false statements or omissions regarding the company's business and asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On May 2, 2025, the court appointed Mark Leone as lead plaintiff and directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to substitute Leone for Alexander Corredor as plaintiff. On the same date, it also appointed lead counsel and set deadlines for filing an amended consolidated class action complaint and briefing schedules for a motion to dismiss, if any, and class certification. On May 27, 2025, Leone and two additional named plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint that asserted the same causes of action and seeks the same relief as the initial complaint and is based upon substantially similar factual allegations as the initial complaint. On June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Also on June 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Dec. 4, 2025, the court denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additionally, on Jan. 30, 2026, a purported stockholder of the company filed a derivative action against certain members of the company's board of directors in the Northern District of Texas asserting claims for, among others, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and a claim for contribution pursuant to Section 21D thereof captioned "Jenis v. Mann, et al." Case No. 3:26-cv-251, where the company was named as a nominal defendant. Separately, on March 2, 2026, a different purported stockholder filed a derivative action against certain members of the company's board of directors in the Southern District of New York asserting claims for, among others, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and a claim for contribution pursuant to Section 21D thereof captioned "Stewart v. Mann, et al.," Case No. 1:26-cv-1712, where the company was named as a nominal defendant in the Stewart Action. The derivative actions arise out of similar allegations as those made in the class action where they seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of compensation, corporate governance reforms, fees, interest and costs. ASP Isotopes Inc. is a development-stage company focused on the production, sales, and distribution of medical and industrial isotopes. The company aims to deploy proprietary technology to supply critical isotopes for applications in healthcare, energy, and other specialized industries. ASTRANA HEALTH: Coleman Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- NINA COLEMAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ASTRANA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21467 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) contends that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Accordingly, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff to work while clocked out during what is supposed to be Plaintiff's off-duty meal break. The Plaintiff was from time to time interrupted by work assignments while clocked out for what should have been Plaintiff's off-duty meal break. The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant started in January of 2023. Astrana is a healthcare management company that provides medical care services in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. Ryan Stygar, Esq. CENTURION TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC 8880 Rio San Diego Dr., Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (888) 225-5792 AUTOLIV INC: ARC Airbag Inflator Products Liability MDL Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2026, that it is facing a multi-district litigation and derivative actions over its airbags. Autoliv and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit in a multi-district litigation titled "In Re: ARC Airbag Inflators Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3051, pending in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation, referred to as the ARC Inflator Class Action, assert claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of consumer protection and trade practices. These claims arose from ARC inflators included in airbag modules that Autoliv or its subsidiaries allegedly supplied after Autoliv acquired certain Delphi assets in December 2009. The company discounts any performance issues regarding ARC inflators included with its airbags at the direction of its customers that it shipped following the Delphi Acquisition. The proceedings in the action remain ongoing. As a related matter, the company further disclosed that in October 2023, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the Northern District of Georgia against certain of its current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal securities laws arising from substantially the same facts and circumstances as the ARC Inflator Class Action. The complaint in this derivative action seeks, among other relief, damages on behalf of the company, corporate governance reforms, restitution, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees, and costs. It is named as a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, and the defendants have moved to dismiss the action. Autoliv Inc. is a global leader in automotive safety systems, developing and manufacturing airbags, seatbelts, steering wheels, and other safety technologies for vehicle manufacturers worldwide. The company is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, and operates through a network of manufacturing and technical facilities across multiple regions. BALLAJ: Plaintiffs Must File Class Certification Bid by Oct. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez, et al., v. Ballaj, Case No. 2:23-cv-02965 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification no later than Oct. 26, 2026. The Defendant shall file his opposition no later than Dec. 28, 2026. The plaintiffs shall file their reply brief no later than Jan. 27, 2027. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] BELIEVE HOME: Gibson Suit Seeks OT Premium Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- NIA GIBSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. BELIEVE HOME CARE LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04715 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2026) seeks overtime premium wages for hours worked over 40 per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Defendant employs workers who provide live-in senior care services to Defendant's clients. The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides home care services to clients in and around Southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com BOBBY E. WRIGHT: Apolito Seeks to Recover Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------ MEGAN APOLITO, TERRANCE KNIGHT, LORETTA YOUNG, and DUWANDA JUDSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BOBBY E. WRIGHT COMPREHENSIVE BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC., and VELMA WILLIAMS, an individual, Defendants, Case: 1:26-cv-08299 ((N.D. Ill., July 13, 2026) is a class and collective action complaint to redress Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Whistleblower Act, by knowingly failing to pay wages and final compensation, including accrued paid time off where applicable. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a Director, Manager, Supervisor, or in another similar position and did not receive minimum wages for all hours worked during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint. The lawsuit arises under the common-law claim of retaliatory discharge on behalf of Plaintiffs Apolito and Knight based on their engagement in protected activity and their resulting termination. Bobby E. Wright Comprehensive Behavioral Center, Inc. is a corporation specializing in the mental health care industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Travis Lampert, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Yasmeen Elagha, Esq. Kelly Dean Pearce, Esq. ATLAS LAW CENTER, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, Illinois 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 Facsimile: (630) 575–8188 Email: tlampert@atlaslawcenter.com mbadwan@atlaslawcenter.com yelagha@atlaslawcenter.com dpearce@atlaslawcenter.com BROADCAST MUSIC: Winfrey Must Submit Amended Complaint by August 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENE WINFREY, v. BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02251-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order directing the Plaintiff to submit his Amended Complaint (or, in the alternative, his papers in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss) to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit no later than August 3, 2026. If plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint, he must caption the document "Amended Complaint," and label it with the docket number of this action: 26-CV-2251. A form with the appropriate case caption is attached to this order for plaintiff's convenience. If he fails to either amend his Complaint or respond to defendants' motion to dismiss, his claims may be dismissed. Plaintiff is reminded that he may receive court documents electronically (rather than waiting for them to be mailed) by completing and submitting a Consent to Electronic Service form, available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases. The Plaintiff is reminded that he may receive court documents electronically (rather than waiting for them to be mailed) by completing and submitting a Consent to Electronic Service form, available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service-pro-se-cases. Broadcast is a performance rights organization in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mbIjrS at no extra charge.[CC] CARAWAY HOMES: Shivum Sues Over Cookware Products' Misleading Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- KARA SHIVUM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. CARAWAY HOMES, INC. a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05717 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2026) seeks to enjoin Caraway from deceptively marketing its cookware products, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. Through its uniform untrue and misleading advertising claims, Caraway misleads consumers about the composition, risks and benefits of the products. Caraway's marketing statements, untruthful marketing, labelling scheme and collective advertising claims deceive reasonable consumers about the products' true risks, and composition. Similarly, Caraway misrepresents the products' risks, composition and benefits in a systematic and pervasive manner. The advertising scheme Caraway perpetuates for the Products tricks reasonable consumers about the products' benefits and composition, consequently deceiving them about the products' advantages, says the suit. Caraway's misleading marketing tactics include making false comparisons to cookware made by competitors. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the products, bought as many units of the products, or paid as much for the products had Caraway marketed the products transparently and represented the products' benefits and composition, including the products' comparison to competitors' cookware, accurately. Likewise, Plaintiff would not have purchased the products, would have bought fewer units of the products, or would have paid a lower price for the products had she understood the products' advantages and composition, the suit alleges. Caraway Homes, Inc. provides kitchen ware products. The Company offers cookware, linens, tea towels, oven mitts, pot holders, apron, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com CHOBANI LLC: Falsely Labels Yogurt's Protein Content, Pitre Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA PITRE and MIKAELA KINDERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHOBANI, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05759 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) arises out of Chobani's misbranding and false and misleading advertising of its Chobani 20G Protein Greek yogurt products sold in 32-ounce, multi serving containers as containing 20 grams of protein per serving. According to the complaint, the Defendant's advertisements, including its labels, represent the Products as providing 20 grams of protein per serving (the 20G Protein Claims), but these representations are unlawful, false, misleading, and likely to deceive the reasonable consumer because the Products do not contain 20 grams of protein per serving when the serving size is properly calculated and are therefore less protein dense than advertised. Instead, rather than providing 20 grams of protein per properly calculated serving, the Products contain less protein per serving than Chobani represents. Chobani achieves its "20G Protein" representation by using an inflated serving size for its 32-ounce, multi-serving containers, causing consumers to believe the Products provide 20 grams of protein per serving when, in fact, they do not. Nonetheless, consumers reasonably understand the "20G Protein" representations on the Products’ labels and packaging to mean that the Products contain 20 grams of protein per properly calculated serving, the suit says. The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers to recover the amounts Plaintiffs and Class members overpaid, to prevent Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful, deceptive, and unfair conduct, and to correct the false perception it has created in the marketplace through its misrepresentations and omissions of material facts. Chobani is an American food company specializing in strained yogurt. The company was founded in 2005 by Hamdi Ulukaya. Chobani sells thick, Greek yogurt with a higher protein content than traditional yogurt and is one of the main companies to popularize this style of yogurt in the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC, Esq. 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com CONAIR LLC: Faces Tompkins Suit Over Defective Grill Brushes ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAIR LLC d/b/a CONAIR, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04070 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from Conair LLC's false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its Cuisinart Metal Wire Bristle Grill Brushes. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the product was safe and reliable, despite being aware that design and manufacturing defects rendered it hazardous. Specifically, the product contains a dangerous defect wherein small metal wire bristles can detach from the brushes and stick to the grill or food, posing an ingestion hazard and risk of serious internal injuries that could require surgery. On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of approximately 1,719,995 units of the product sold in stores including Burlington, TJ Maxx, and Ross, and online including Amazon.com and Cuisinart.com from June 2009 through March 2026. The Plaintiff and other consumers who acquired the product learned through the Recall that the product posed a serious safety hazard requiring immediate cessation of use. As a remedy, Defendant has offered a refund or a credit for use at Cuisinart.com. However, consumers are required to discard the recalled grill brushes and undergo a burdensome process to obtain relief, asserts the suit. Based upon the foregoing, and by selling a dangerously defective product, the Defendant has breached warranty provisions, violated New York consumer protection statutes, has been negligent, and has been unjustly enriched, asserts the complaint. Conair LLC d/b/a Conair manufactures, markets, and distributes home, kitchen, and grilling products under the Cuisinart brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 134 Mineola Blvd., 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Protein Powder Contains Heavy Metals, Barton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BARTON, DANIEL LEVINE, SANDI MORGAN, TUCKER JAROLL, CLAIRE SCHMITT, ANNA BALTZER, and RANDALL HARTWRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-02364 (W.D. Wash., July 7, 2026) contends that the Defendant fails to disclose the protein powder products contain heavy metals for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the packaging and the point-of-sale for the alleged contaminated products contain misrepresentations and partial misstatements that contradict the presence of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Heavy metals are known to pose significant and adverse health risks and consequences to humans. It is well-recognized that there are no safe levels of human exposure to any of the heavy metals, including cadmium and lead. Exposure to heavy metals, including cadmium and lead, can cause negative health effects, such as various cancers, gastric and vascular disorders, liver, kidney, and brain damage, miscarriages, and reproductive disorders, says the suit. Costco Wholesale Corporation sells Orgain Organic Protein Powder in its stores and online.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, Esq. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com cpeterson@hechtpartners.com CRATE & BARREL: Removes Iniguez Suit to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ALVARO INIGUEZ; and MARY ANN TOLENTINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRATE & BARREL HOLDINGS, INC.; and EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-2-18643-0 SEA) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 7, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02370. Crate & Barrel Holdings, Inc. provides home furnishing products. The Company offers rugs, furniture, tabletop, bedding, and lighting products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John C. Versnel, III, Esq. Maxwell Wesemann, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 520 Pike Street, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 709-5900 Facsimile: (206) 709-5901 Email: john.versnel@wilsonelser.com maxwell.wesemann@wilsonelser.com CURBSURE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sigurdson Due Jan. 14, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SIGURDSON, v. CURBSURE, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01537-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered a case management order as follows: (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other amendments to the pleadings, is 60 days after entry of this order unless stated otherwise below. The case is referred to private mediation to be completed 150 days of this order. The Court further orders that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply: Event Date Or Deadline Last day to request leave to amend the 60 Days from Date pleadings per Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 of this Order Last day to file motion for class Jan. 14, 2027 certification: Last day to hear dispositive motions: July 22, 2027, at 9:00 am. Final pretrial conference: Oct. 28, 2027, at 1:30 pm. Trial: Nov. 29, 2027, at 9:00 am. CurbSure offers car insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mR7PIw at no extra charge.[CC] CYBERPOWER INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CYBERPOWER INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05736 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.cyberpowerpc.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including on May 7, 2026 and May 8, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Tracer IX Edge Pro LC16 300 from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. CyberPower Inc. operates the website that offers gaming products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal DECKERS OUTDOOR: Fails to Return Illegal Subject Tariffs, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAFAH DULIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-07346 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2026) seeks to ensure that the Plaintiff's and the proposed Classes' payment of the illegal Subject Tariffs are returned and therefore demand monetary, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, Deckers's retention of those costs unjustly profits Deckers at the expense of the consumers. Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose new and significant tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign country, including those from which Deckers sources its Products. Following the imposition of Subject Tariffs, Deckers Chief Financial Officer Steven Fasching publicly stated that Deckers would implement price increases across its product lines to manage the financial impact of the Subject Tariffs. Consistent with these statements, retail prices for the Products increased in the United States as a result of the tariffs. The Plaintiff and the Class purchased the Products after these price increases took effect and, as a result, paid higher prices reflecting these tariff-related adjustments (Tariff Costs). At the same time, Deckers challenged the legality of the Subject Tariffs in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), seeking to halt enforcement of the tariff orders and obtain refunds of the duties it paid because of the Subject Tariffs. In demanding a refund for duties paid because of the Subject Tariffs, Deckers did not acknowledge the consumers to whom Deckers had passed on the economic burden of those duties through Tariff Costs. The case before the Court of International Trade was stayed pending the Supreme Court's resolution of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in which businesses challenged the lawfulness of the Subject Tariffs. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the Subject Tariffs were unlawful. Despite seeking an order entitling it to a refund of its duties collected as a result of the Subject Tariffs, Deckers continues to collect and has not refunded the Tariff Costs it collected from consumers. Upon the determination that the Subject Tariffs were unlawful, giving rise to Deckers's right to receive the duties it paid under the unlawful tariff scheme, Deckers is likewise obligated to return the corresponding Tariff Costs collected from Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit. Deckers sells and markets various footwear products under the UGG, HOKA, and Teva brands through brick-and-mortar stores and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law EARNIN US1: Faces Taylor Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------ VIVIAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARNIN US1 LLC d/b/a EARNIN and ACTIVEHOURS, INC. d/b/a EARNIN, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-06673 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumer Privacy Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Earnin's network systems following a data breach discovered on or about November 7, 2025. The Defendants 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. EarnIn US1 LLC, doing business as EarnIn, is a financial technology company, headquartered in Mountain View, California. Activehours, Inc., doing business as EarnIn, is a financial technology company, headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 2261 Market Street, Ste. 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com GENERAL MILLS: Thomas Sues Over Cereal Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- MARSHEYNTH THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21293 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) seeks to enjoin Defendant General Mills from deceptively marketing its "CHEERIOS(TM) PROTEIN" cereal product line, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. According to the complaint, through its uniform untrue and misleading advertising claims, General Mills misleads consumers about the nutritional value, disadvantages and benefits of the product. Likewise, the marketing tactics General Mills employs, such as deceptively over- emphasizing the product's protein levels and relying on material omissions about the product's sugar concentration, perpetuate a false health halo marketing scheme that deceives consumer about the product's health risks. Allegedly, Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased the product were injured by Defendant General Mills' acts and omissions concerning product's nutritional content. No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the product posed more egregious health risk than Defendant General Mills represented, or lacked the benefits Defendant General Mills advertised. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the product, bought as many boxes of the product, or paid as much for the product had Defendant General Mills marketed the product transparently and represented the product's nutritional benefits accurately, says the suit. General Mills is a statewide and nationwide food manufacturer that specializes in producing various types of cereals to sell throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shalini Dogra, Esq. DOGRA LAW GROUP PC 2219 Main Street, Unit 239 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (747) 234-6673 Facsimile: (310) 868-0170 E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.com GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Captures Facial Biometrics, Trevino Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-06694 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intrusion upon seclusion and violations of California Constitutional Right to Privacy and California Civil Code. The case arises from Google's practice of capturing the biometric and facial data of every person that passes within its Google Nest devices without obtaining prior consent. According to the complaint, the devices capture facial details, biometric data, and non-biometric details from every passerby and compile this information into a vast library of data called the "Familiar Faces Library." As a result of Google's actions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Google LLC is a technology company, headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Lisa Cintron, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com lcintron@ahdootwolfson.com HOME DEPOT: Wright Sues Over Unauthorized Sale of Consumers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM E. WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00683-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Virginia's Personal Information Privacy Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of selling the personally identifiable information (PII) of its consumers to third parties without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant profits handsomely from the unauthorized sale and disclosure of consumers' purchasing patterns and other personal information and does so at the expense of its consumers' statutory privacy rights. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Joe Marchese, Esq. Ira Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com HOMEBODY INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Rent-Fee Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brittany Heffner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Homebody Insurance Agency, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 25-3634-BAH (D. Md.), Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Homebody Insurance Agency, LLC's motion to compel arbitration and granted WP&M Real Estate Group, LLC's motion to dismiss all claims against it. Plaintiff brought this putative class action suit alleging that Defendants violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), Section 8-208 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act (MCSBA). Plaintiff entered into a residential lease with WP&M in November 2024 and, during the leasing process, WP&M's agents presented a Homebody Rent Reporting Lease Addendum, under which all residents were automatically enrolled in a rent-reporting service operated by Homebody. After one free month, Plaintiff incurred and paid a monthly fee of 8.95 dollars for the service. Homebody moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in its online terms of use, incorporated by reference into the lease addendum. Plaintiff opposed, arguing the arbitration provision was illusory because Homebody's terms allowed modification at any time and in its sole discretion, with changes effective immediately upon posting online. The court agreed with Plaintiff. Applying Maryland contract law, the court explained that a promise to arbitrate is illusory where the modifying party retains the unilateral right to alter the arbitration terms without advance notice or an opportunity to reject the change. Because Homebody's modification clause provided only after-the-fact notice through website posting, rather than advance notice allowing Plaintiff to exit before a change took effect, the court found the arbitration promise illusory and unsupported by consideration. The court rejected Homebody's argument that the arbitration terms never actually changed during Plaintiff's tenancy, noting that it is the retained power to modify, not whether that power was exercised, that renders a promise illusory. Homebody's motion to compel arbitration was therefore denied. WP&M separately moved to dismiss all five counts against it. On the CROA claim, the court found the complaint alleged that Homebody, not WP&M, provided the rent-reporting service, and that nothing in the complaint suggested WP&M sold or offered credit repair services for a fee. The court dismissed this count as to WP&M. On the Real Property Section 8-208 claim, which prohibits landlords from including lease provisions that require tenants to waive statutory rights, the court found the arbitration and class-action-waiver language existed only in Homebody's separate terms of use, not in the lease itself, and was enforceable by Homebody rather than WP&M. The complaint also failed to allege any actual damages tied to inclusion of the arbitration clause, since Plaintiff's fees stemmed from automatic enrollment and her own failure to opt out, not from the clause's inclusion. On the MCPA claim, the court found Plaintiff failed to allege that she relied on any misrepresentation by WP&M. She did not allege that she would have declined the lease or the rent-reporting program had WP&M disclosed additional information, a required element of an MCPA claim based on omission or misrepresentation. On the MCSBA claim, the court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege WP&M functioned as a credit services business, since the pleaded facts showed only Homebody advertised the program as a credit-building tool. Plaintiff also failed to allege any actual injury, such as depressed credit scores or lost housing opportunities, resulting from WP&M's conduct. Because all substantive claims against WP&M failed, the court dismissed Plaintiff's derivative claim for declaratory and injunctive relief as well, noting such relief is not an independent cause of action. WP&M was dismissed as a defendant. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion for leave to amend her complaint, along with a proposed amended pleading, within twenty-one days, while noting this ruling does not guarantee that amendment will ultimately be permitted. Homebody was directed to answer the complaint within fourteen days. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BVuzUe from PacerMon INTER-CON SECURITY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gomez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- IAN GOMEZ and JOHN WHALEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-07351 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2026) is a class action individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their highly sensitive personal and financial information, including but not limited to full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, employer identifiers, wage and compensation data, detailed tax withholding information, and other personally identifiable information disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising Inter-Con's systems in June 2026. On or about June 18, 2026, the ransomware and extortion group known as ShinyHunters publicly claimed responsibility for compromising Inter-Con's network and announced that it had stolen approximately 2.7 million records and internal corporate data. The threat actors further warned that they intended to publish the stolen information if Inter-Con failed to comply with their demands, says the suit. Inter-Con is a privately held security services company. Inter-Con provides security services to Fortune 500 companies, public utilities, airports, critical infrastructure, and federal, state, and local government agencies throughout the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. Yufei Wang, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com ywang@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com JACKERY INC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07988 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.jackery.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on December 9, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's portable energy source capable of supporting household power needs and backup use, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the home power solution, he wished to acquire from the website, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Jackery, Inc. operates the website that offers portable power solutions, power stations, solar generators, and energy storage systems designed for home backup, outdoor use, and emergency preparedness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JINON CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- ZULEMA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JINON CORPORATION; RITA LETICIA NAVA MERA; ALFRED STEPHEN BLANKENSEE; YOSHIKO TSUJINO; MATASABURO C. TSUJINO; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21442 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 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 Ortiz was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker. Jinon Corporation, doing business as Nijiya market, provides retail sale of canned food and dry goods. The Company offers fresh seafood, stocks meat, organic vegetables, fruits, and sushi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 229-0100 Email: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com orobinson@rdwlaw.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Harris Class Action Suit Over ALPR System ------------------------------------------------------------------ YOLANDA HARRIS, LILLIAN ELLIOTT, SARAH STIERCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. D/B/A KAISER PERMANENTE, Case No. 26CV197879 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) is a class action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose vehicles were captured by ALPR systems at Kaiser's California facilities during the class period. According to the complaint, Kaiser has installed automated license plate recognition cameras (the ALPR System), operated in whole or in part through its ALPR vendor Flock Group, Inc. at the entrances and exits of its California Kaiser facilities and parking lots. These cameras capture the license plate, make, model, color, and distinguishing features of every vehicle entering Kaiser's properties, log that data with precise timestamps and location information (the Surveillance Data), and feed it into a centralized, searchable database accessible to law enforcement agencies (the Flock Network). Californians' visits to their doctors are being tracked and shared with third parties as a result of Kaiser's ALPR System. Kaiser did this secretly, and it did so knowingly. For years, Kaiser installed and operated its ALPR System at its California medical facilities without posting any ALPR-specific use and privacy policy on its websites, and without conspicuously disclosing to members and patients that their Surveillance Data was being captured, stored, and shared with law enforcement. Surveillance is conducted using AI technology that facilitates the review of information related to visitor vehicles, and tracking data is shared directly with law enforcement agencies and private corporate entities, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of not less than $2,500 per person harmed, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees as provided by the ALPR Act and the Unfair Competition Law. During the class period, Plaintiff Harris drove to and parked at numerous Kaiser Permanente facilities throughout Alameda County, including its San Leandro, Union City, Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville locations, on a recurring basis with visits documented as recently as June 2026. The Defendant is a healthcare network managing health insurance plans, medical groups, and hospitals for roughly 12.9 million individuals, a large portion of whom reside throughout California. These integrated medical centers experience heavy daily traffic from members, patients, and the public who enter the properties to receive clinical care, obtain prescriptions, or accompany friends and relatives during medical appointments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jingber@zlk.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com KONICA MINOLTA: Appeal Filed in Cezus Case in Third Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. filed an appeal from a court decision in the case captioned, JAMES CEZUS vs. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00792-JXN-LDW. The appeal was filed on July 7, 2026 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and captioned as JAMES CEZUS vs. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 26-8035 (3rd Cir.). Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA Inc. provides management technologies and IT Services. The Company offers services, such as production print systems, digital presses, multifunctional products, optimized print services, vertical application solutions, and developer support program. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A. Hradil, Esq. Kristin D. Sostowski, Esq. Bria S. Beaufort, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4500 KONTOOR US: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Tlaib Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KONTOOR US LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00631 (M.D.N.C., July 2, 2026) is an action for damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from Defendant's practice of charging Plaintiff and other customers inflated prices in response to unlawfully imposed tariffs. The suit arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated as a consequence of the unlawful tariffs imposed by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This windfall is a direct result of Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers through elevated product prices, and then seeking a refund from the federal government for those same tariffs. The Defendant paid IEEPA tariffs when it imported the products and/or components of the products Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers purchased. To offset the cost of paying IEEPA tariffs, the Defendant passed those costs on to Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers by inflating the prices of its products, says the suit. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the IEEPA and other statutes cited in the Tariff Executive Orders do not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Defendant has sought a refund of the tariffs it paid pursuant to the Tariff Executive Orders through a complaint filed in the United States Court of International Trade. Despite having sought tariff refunds for itself in the Court of International Trade, Defendant has made no commitment to return any portion of its anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately bore the costs of such tariffs through elevated prices, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals to seek redress for violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as common law Unjust Enrichment and common law Money Had and Received, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. Kontoor US LLC is a U.S.-based company organized in the State of Delaware with its headquarters located in Greensboro, North Carolina. Kontoor US LLC is an apparel company that designs, manufactures, sources and distributes apparel in the United States under various brand names, including Wrangler, Lee, Helly Hansen, and Musto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 E-mail: jdemay@brysonpllc.com KROGER CO: Curtis Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- KIARA CURTIS, ELLIS SHIPMAN, and HEATHER WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO. Case No. 1:26-cv-03036 (D. Colo., July 7, 2026) challenges Kroger's alleged long standing policy of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked. According to the complaint, Kroger instituted a policy of requiring its employees to wait in line and pass a security screening before clocking-in for the day. Similarly, Kroger instituted a policy of requiring its employees to wait in line and pass a security screening after clocking-out for the day. Further, Kroger instituted a policy of failing to pay for time spent working during meal periods. Kroger deducted time for a meal break even when no meal break was taken by Plaintiffs. Kroger also violated Colorado law in failing to provide a 10 minute paid rest break for each four hours worked, the suit contends. The Plaintiffs worked for Kroger in Colorado and bring their claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders. Kroger is a retail corporation that operates supermarkets and department stores that sells groceries and products to customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com LAKESHORE LEARNING: Flores Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO FRANCO FLORES, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS, LLC, a California limited liability company; LAKESHORE, a company of unknown form; LAKESHORE LEARNING CORPORATE, a company of unknown form; KORE1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21337 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) contends that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages under the Labor Code. The Plaintiff will seek to represent and certify the putative Classes currently composed of and defined as follows: a. Minimum Wages Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding the payment of minimum wages as specifically described herein. b. Overtime Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding the payment of overtime wages as specifically described herein. c. On-Call Class: All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week while they were on-call. d. Meal Period Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding meal periods as specifically described herein e. Rest Period Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding paid rest periods as specifically described herein. f. Wage Statement Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding itemized wage statements as specifically described herein. g. Failure to Timely Pay Class: All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and practice of not timely paying all wages earned when they were due and payable at least twice monthly. h. Termination Pay Class: All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment and were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon termination. i. Unauthorized Deductions from Wages Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding wage deductions as specifically described herein. j. Expense Reimbursement Class: All Class members who were subjected to Defendants' policies and practices regarding business expense reimbursement as specifically-described herein. k. UCL Class: All Class members who are owed restitution as a result of Defendants' business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Employees of Defendants worked in Defendants' facilities at Defendants' behest and without being paid all wages due and without being provided all their required meal periods and rest breaks. Lakeshore Learning is a chain of educational supply stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Jean Hopkins Power, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101-1639 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: R.Shkodnik@d.law J.Power@d.law LIVING SPACES: Betanco PAGA Claims Allowed to Proceed in Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of LUIS BETANCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants. LUIS BETANCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LIVING SPACES FURNITURE, LLC, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case Nos. A169754, A169755, A169756, A169768 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One, held that Betanco was a transportation worker exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that he could pursue his representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) in court, affirming the trial court's orders. After Respondent Betanco filed a class action lawsuit and a separate PAGA action (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.) against Appellants Living Spaces and Of Service Transportation, LLC, the Appellants moved to compel arbitration. The trial court partially granted and partially denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding Betanco was a "transportation worker" exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA. They also argued that the court should have dismissed Betanco's nonindividual PAGA claims. Living Spaces operates furniture stores and distribution centers across several states, including California. Its products are manufactured both domestically and internationally, including in Mexico, before being shipped to its California locations. The company contracts with delivery providers, including Of Service, to transport merchandise from its distribution centers to customers. In 2018, Betanco began working as a delivery driver for Of Service, transporting Living Spaces furniture from its warehouse to customers. In 2019, he signed an independent contractor agreement through his company, Betanco Trucking, Inc., which required disputes with Of Service to be resolved through binding arbitration under the FAA. The agreement also prohibited class, collective, or representative arbitration without mutual consent. Although Living Spaces was not a party to the agreement, it later argued that the arbitration clause applied to Betanco's claims because it was an intended beneficiary. Betanco stopped working for Of Service in 2021 after raising concerns about long hours and inadequate pay. Betanco filed two lawsuits against Living Spaces and Of Service that were consolidated on appeal. In the first, a class action filed in September 2021, Betanco alleged Labor Code violations, including unpaid minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and unlawful wage deductions. The action was brought on behalf of Betanco and "all non-employee individuals who performed delivery services for Appellants as a Contract Carrier, Driver, and/or Helper in the State of California." In December 2021, Betanco filed a separate PAGA action seeking civil penalties for alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees. Both Living Spaces and Of Service filed answers to the two lawsuits. About a year and a half after the lawsuits were filed, including an eight-month stay for mediation, Living Spaces and Of Service filed a joint petition to compel arbitration in both cases. The petition sought to arbitrate all of Betanco's claims and dismiss his nonindividual PAGA claims under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022). Betanco opposed the motion, arguing that arbitration was barred under the FAA because he was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from FAA coverage. He also argued that Viking River did not apply because the FAA exemption prevented enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The trial court partially granted the motion to compel arbitration. It found that Betanco was equitably estopped from challenging arbitration based on Living Spaces' status as a nonsignatory because he alleged that he worked as the company’s employee and agent. The court also found that Living Spaces and Of Service did not waive their right to arbitrate and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. These rulings were not challenged on appeal. The trial court agreed with Betanco that he was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from FAA coverage. Applying state law instead, it found that Betanco failed to show the class arbitration waiver was unenforceable under Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 443 and declined to invalidate the waiver. However, it ruled that Betanco's unpaid wage claims could proceed in court under Labor Code section 229 despite the arbitration agreement. The trial court then denied the Appellants' request to dismiss Betanco's representative PAGA claims, finding that he had standing to pursue them under Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023). However, it stayed those claims until after Betanco completed arbitration of his individual PAGA claims. The trial court's order required Betanco to arbitrate his claims for reimbursement of employee expenses, inaccurate wage statements, and unfair competition, as well as his individual PAGA claims. It stayed both the class action and PAGA action while arbitration proceeded. Living Spaces and Of Service appealed the trial court's orders in both the class action and PAGA action. The Court of Appeals consolidated the four related appeals (A169754, A169755, A169756, A169768) and allowed the parties to submit joint briefs. After oral argument, it delayed its decision at the Appellants' request pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, after which the parties filed supplemental briefs. The Appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding Betanco was a "transportation worker" exempt from the FAA under Section 1. Reviewing the issue de novo because the facts were undisputed, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Betanco qualified as a transportation worker because he delivered goods that were destined for customers as part of an interstate journey. As a result, the arbitration agreement was exempt from FAA enforcement under Section 1. The Appellants also argued that the trial court should have dismissed Betanco's nonindividual PAGA claims. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that Betanco had standing as an aggrieved employee under PAGA because he alleged that he was employed by the alleged violators and suffered the claimed Labor Code violations. It explained that other workers' arbitration agreements did not affect Betanco's standing and upheld the trial court's denial of the Appellants' motion to dismiss the representative PAGA claims under Adolph. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders in all four consolidated appeals, Nos. A169754, A169755, A169756, and A169768. Betanco was awarded appellate costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/9xbOqFXiB. Baker & Hostetler LLP, Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@bakerlaw.com -- Sylvia J. Kim -- sjkim@bakerlaw.com -- Amy E. Beverlin -- abeverlin@bakerlaw.com -- Richard Raile -- rraile@bakerlaw.com; Dykema Gossett LLP, James S. Azadian -- jazadian@dykema.com -- Charlotte G. Carne -- ccarne@dykema.com -- James Azadian for Defendants and Appellants. Boyamian Law, Inc., Michael H. Boyamian -- michael@boyamianlaw.com -- Armand R. Kizirian -- armand@kizirianlaw.com --for Plaintiff and Respondent. LLT MANAGEMENT: Faces Bynum Suit Over Unsafe Talc Products ---------------------------------------------------------- JONI S. BYNUM, ROBIN COBURN, AND JAMES COBURN, individually and on behalf of a proposed class, Plaintiffs v. LLT MANAGEMENT LLC F/K/A LTL MANAGEMENT, LLC; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; NEW JJCI; JOHNSON & JOHNSON HOLDCO (NA) INC; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; KENVUE INC.; J&J SERVICES, INC.; AND JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case 3:26-cv-08736-MAS-RLS (D. N.J., July 14, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendant's false and misleading representations regarding the safety of their talc-containing products Johnson's Baby Powder and/or Shower to Shower. According to the complaint, the products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be advertised, marketed, and sold in the United States and lacked proper warnings associated with their use. The Plaintiffs diagnosed with defined injuries are seeking relief in the form of medical monitoring for epithelial ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer and members who were not diagnosed with cancer are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. LLT Management LLC is primarily known as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson established to manage and resolve thousands of ovarian cancer claims related to the company's cosmetic talc litigation. Johnson & Johnson was engaged in the manufacturing, formulating, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing the products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Golomb, Esq. Kevin Fay, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 N 18th Street, #1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 929-8822 - and - Christopher Tisi, Esq. Mike Papantonio, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN, BARR, MOUGEY, P.A. 316 S. Baylen Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7000 Email: ctisi@levinlaw.com mpapantonia@levinlaw.com - and - P. Leigh O'Dell, Esq. Andy Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Ted G. Meadows, Esq. David B. Byrne, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce St. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 - and - Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 335-2600 - and - Warren Burns, Esq. Amanda Klevorn, Esq. Natalie Earles BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com aklevorn@burnscharest.com nearles@burnscharest.com - and - Laurence S. Berman, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-4663 Email: lberman@lfsblaw.com MACYS.COM LLC: Faces Caban Class Action Suit Over Spam E-mails -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK CABAN and DELDURON GREEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MACYS.COM, LLC, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, ADVERTEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and MACY'S MERCHANDISING CORP., Case No. 45D11-2607-PL-000389 (Ind. Cir., Lake Cty., July 7, 2026) seeks to put an end to Macy's harassment of Indiana residents and to remedy the injuries it has caused. According to the complaint, Macy's spams Hoosiers, including Plaintiffs, with email subject lines that employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in their minds and, ultimately, their wallets. Macy's floods Hoosiers' email inboxes with messages communicating, falsely, that their time to act -- that is, purchase Macy's products -- is short. This false urgency wastes Hoosiers' time by enticing them to engage with the Macy's fictious deadlines. It impedes them from making informed purchasing decisions. And it steers them away from shopping around for better deals, says the suit. In 2003, like other states around the same time, to protect Indiana residents from the annoyance and harassment caused by the burgeoning spam email industry, the General Assembly enacted and the Governor signed the Deceptive Commercial Electronic Mail Act, codified at Indiana Code title 24, article 5, chapter 22. In 2003, the United States Congress found that "many senders of unsolicited commercial electronic mail purposefully include misleading information in the messages' subject lines in order to induce the recipients to view the messages." MACYS.COM, LLC is the e-commerce and digital operations subsidiary of Macy's, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Krenning Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- AISLYN KRENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03206 (D. Minn., July 7, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was 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 PHI/PII 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. Medtronic, Inc. provides medical devices. The Company offers surgical devices, medical instruments, apparatus, respiratory monitoring systems, medical supplies, and other equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com MEGAN HOLDINGS: Mundy Sues Over False Business Statements --------------------------------------------------------- WADE MUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEGAN HOLDINGS LIMITED; DARREN HOO AKA HOO WEI SERN; NG KAI TIE; D. BORAL CAPITAL LLC; and WWC, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05754 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Company, its executives and its auditor made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in the securities. The Offering Documents contained material misstatements and omissions of fact. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Megan was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (2) Megan's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (3) as a result, Megan securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by NASDAQ and severe volatility-induced decline; (4) had conducted numerous microcap IPOs that suffered volatility-induced declines resulting from market manipulation schemes; (5) the Company suffered from material weaknesses in its internal accounting and financial reporting controls; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Megan Holdings Limited operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, specializes in the development, construction, and maintenance of aquaculture farms and related works. Megan Holdings serves customers in Malaysia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. Rourke Donahue, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 Email: guiney@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com donahue@whafh.com MEODED PAINTS: Faces Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO TORRES, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEODED PAINTS & DECORATION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21455 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) is a putative class action against Defendants brought on behalf of Plaintiff, individually and a putative class of all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated and continue to violate state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages); (b) imposing unlawful quotas; (c) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to authorize or permit rest periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (e) failing to reimburse necessary business expenses; (f) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (g) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and (h) engaging in unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt employee in California within the past year. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff's job duties included, inter alia, unloading trucks, cleaning, moving heavy pallets, lifting and carrying 50 pound buckets and other materials, and other tasks in the warehouse. Meoded Paints & Decoration, Inc. produces lime wash paint, metallic paints, glitter paints, and water-resistant plasters, serving residential and commercial spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. Shelly Song, Esq. ARIS LLP 1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 807-4467 Facsimile: (949) 807-4469 E-mail: dhyun@arisllp.com ssong@arisllp.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Suit Over Five-Year Eligibility Rule --------------------------------------------------------------- BROCK WISNE, AIDAN SHAW, AISLIN MALCOLM, CADE TYSON, ABIGAIL JEFFERIES, ANTHONY JOHNSON, LOUIE JORDAN, JEFFERSON DE LA CRUZ MONEGRO, ISAIAH JONES, DIMOND LOOSLI, BRETT GRIFFITHS, and JAKE MORELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03063 (D. Colo., July 8, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons in the United States whose rights are implicated by the Five-Year Eligibility Rule. The Plaintiffs are a group of NCAA Division I collegiate athletes and students who come to the Court as a last resort and as a direct result of the NCAA's unlawful action in implementing a new eligibility rule on June 24, 2026 (hereinafter the "Five-Year Eligibility Rule") in a manner designed to prevent Plaintiffs from playing their sports at an NCAA member college or university for the 2026-2027 season. At its core, the Five-Year Eligibility Rule provides for athletes in Division I programs to compete for five seasons in the five years following the first day of enrollment in a collegiate institution or the first semester following their 19th birthday, subject to narrow predetermined exemptions. The Plaintiffs have each completed just four years of collegiate sports. All are under 24 years of age. By a proper reading of the NCAA's own rule, they should be entitled to a fifth season. But the NCAA has decided that they are not. Unless the Court grants Plaintiffs both immediate and lasting relief, the Plaintiffs will incur significant irreparable harm and monetary damages. More specifically, the Plaintiffs will forever lose the opportunity to complete the remainder of their collegiate careers alongside their teammates who will benefit from the rule change -- as well as significant Name, Image, and Likeness compensation that is contingent on them playing this next season, the suit contends. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek the protection of the Court to remedy the NCAA's violation of federal antitrust law through its monopsonistic behavior and arbitrary application of its eligibility rules to an athlete. National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit organization that regulates intercollegiate athletics across more than 1,100 schools in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce L. Braley, Esq. Alex R. Wilschke, Esq. Brian N. Aleinikoff, Esq. Adrian G. Johnson, Esq. LEVENTHAL PUGA BRALEY P.C. 950 S. Cherry St., Suite 600 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 759-9945 Facsimile: (303) 759-9692 E-mail: bbraley@leventhal-law.com awilschke@leventhal-law.com brian@leventhal-law.com ajohnson@leventhal-law.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com zfreed@cuneolaw.com - and - Christian Hudson, Esq. Alexandra Klein, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 222 Livingston Street, Unit 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com aklein@cuneolaw.com - and - Daniel Cohen, Esq. Zachary Freed, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M Street NW, Ste. 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: christian@cuneolaw.com aklein@cuneolaw.com - and - Elliot S. Abrams, Esq. CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER & ABRAMS, PLLC 133 Fayetteville Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 1029 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-3114 Facsimile: (919) 832-0739 E-mail: elliot.abrams@cheshirepark.com - and- J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.co - and - C. Peter Goplerud III, Esq. NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP 401 W. Broadway Ave. Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (904) 502-9515 E-mail: pgoplerud@nationlit.com NEW YORK, NY: Farahmand Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Interns ------------------------------------------------------------ MINA FARAHMAND, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:26-cv-05758 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly engaged by the City of New York to perform work classified by Defendants as "unpaid interns," within the offices of the New York City Council pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have wrongfully withheld wages from Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendants. The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, all compensation, including minimum wage, of which they were deprived, plus interest, damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other members of the putative collective as unpaid interns, the Plaintiff is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA. New York City Council is an entity duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State and City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: JMurphy@vandallp.com NEW YORK: Lawrence Sues Over Improper Denial of Medicaid Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE LAWRENCE; and LUCIEN FOLENDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES V. McDONALD, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; WILLOW BAER, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities; HASC CENTER, INC.; and HAMASPIK OF KINGS COUNTY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04061 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Medicaid Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have systematically flouted that constitutional command and the Medicaid Act's mandatory fair hearing regulations by denying or terminating the Medicaid benefits of Plaintiffs and the Class without any hearing or semblance of due process at all. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC's island of Manhattan is home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Cremin, Esq. Tiffany Liston, Esq. MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC. 100 William Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 417-3717 Email: kcremin@mfjlegal.org - and - Mark E. McDonald, Esq. Andrew M. Darcy, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 Email: memcdonald@cgsh.com ONLY BEAN: Ting Sues Over Snacks' Misleading Protein Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- GENESIA TING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ONLY BEAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06732 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of "The Only Bean Crunchy Dry Roasted Edamame" snacks. Specifically, the Defendant markets the products as a "High Protein Supersnack" that contains "11 G[rams] Protein," while failing to disclose that the corrected, digestible amount of protein the products provide is materially less than advertised. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. The Only Bean, LLC is a manufacturer of snack products, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gucovschilaw.com PHELPS SECURITY: Cates Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- SHERICE CATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHELPS SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case 2:26-cv-02852 (W.D. Tenn., July 13, 2026) is a collective and class action complaint to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and unpaid straight time wages and other applicable damages pursuant to Tennessee common law. According to the complaint, Defendant Phelps employs an improper and non-neutral time rounding policy that fails to compensate the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members of their overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates when they worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were employed by Phelps as hourly security officers and were paid based on scheduled shift hours rather than for all compensable time actually worked. Phelps Security, Inc. is a Tennessee-based provider of armed and unarmed security officers to commercial and industrial clients across the Memphis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com PRIME HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Hamachai Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARISSA HAMACHAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES - ST. FRANCIS, LLC; HIRING ANYWHERE INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21313 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) is a representative action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of persons who are and were employed by any or all Defendants as non-exempt employees and misclassified as independent contractors throughout California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition by: -- misclassifying employees as independent contractors; -- failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); -- failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; -- failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; -- making unlawful deductions; -- failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; -- failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; -- failing to pay wages timely during employment; and -- failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. Prime Healthcare is a for-profit healthcare company headquartered in Ontario, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com PURPOSECARE OF ILLINOIS: Vanderhei Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ LAURA VANDERHEI and MELANY COLIN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PURPOSECARE OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07981 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) is an action seeking redress for Defendant's systematic, company-wide violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by knowingly failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees proper overtime premium wages for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek. The complaint asserts that the Defendant classified Plaintiffs and other clinical assistants as non-exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA. Plaintiff Vanderhei has worked for the Defendant as a Physical Therapy Assistant, performing home health care services in this District. PurposeCare of Illinois, LLC is a certified home health and home care agency serving the counties surrounding Park Ridge and Joliet in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com SECUR SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------- DARIAN D. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECUR SOLUTION, INC.; PEOPLEASE, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21319 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Jackson was employed by the Defendants as a security guard. Secure Solutions, Inc. operates as a risk management and security consulting firm. The Company offers security consulting, crisis management, business intelligence, energy and petrochemical infrastructure protection, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Kacey E. Cook, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com kcook@lelawfirm.com SERVICE EXPERTS: Parrott Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY PARROTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICE EXPERTS, LLC; ADVANTAGE EXPERTS SERVICES, LLC; and SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING LLC d/b/a NEAL HARRIS SERVICE EXPERTS AND SERVICE EXPERTS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02397 (D. Kan., July 7, 2026) alleges Defendants' alleged violations of the Consumer Leasing Act and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants used the "Service Experts Advantage Program" ("Advantage Program"), a standardized HVAC leasing program through which Defendants market long-term lease obligations to consumers while concealing the true nature and financial consequences of the transaction. The Defendants installed HVAC equipment on Plaintiff's property but never informed Plaintiff that they were placing her in a ten-year lease obligating her to pay nearly double the installed cost of the equipment. After generating a lease "agreement," Defendants began to collect monthly payments. The Plaintiff did not receive the disclosures that federal law requires Defendants to provide in a form she could understand, access, or keep prior to enrolling her in the lease program, says the suit. Service Experts LLC provides heating, cooling and other home comfort equipment services. The Company offers heat pumps, plumbing, electrical, indoor air quality, commercial HVAC, cooling, and other services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Fisk, Esq. BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC 8645 College Boulevard, Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 339-6888 Facsimile: (913) 339-9653 Email: rfisk@bkwflaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com - and - Denise Hammond, Esq. BURK-HAMMOND LAW, LLC P.O. Box 2877 Olathe, KS 66063 Telephone: (913) 318-3444 Facsimile: (913) 782-5766 Email: dhammond@burkhammondlaw.com SMART & FINAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morse Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MORSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART & FINAL STORES LLC; CHEDRAUI USA, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21331 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Morse was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Smart & Final Stores LLC is a chain of warehouse-style food and supply stores based in Commerce, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley 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@setrehlaw.com Brandley@setrehlaw.com vmas@setrehlaw.com ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL: Prampin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMARA PRAMPIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. CHARLES HOSPITAL and REHABILITATION CENTER, and CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEM OF LONG ISLAND, INC. d/b/a CATHOLIC HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 619080/2026 (N.Y. Sup., Suffolk Cty., July 7, 2026) is a class action brought to remedy Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without proper pay, including, inter alia, overtime work. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to receive minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked and that they were not receiving minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to reimbursement of all necessary business-related expenses and that they were not being reimbursed for all necessary business-related expenses, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants from approximately December 2023 to approximately January 2026. St. Charles Hospital and Rehabilitation Center is an acute-care hospital and rehabilitation center, which is a part of the Catholic Health Hospital System.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Jonathan Apsan, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com joanna@calljustice.com j.apsan@calljustie.com STHRN HOSPITALITY: Ballow Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICE LAMONT BALLOW, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. STHRN HOSPITALITY CO., LLC d/b/a WESTSIDE MOTOR LOUNGE, Domestic Limited Liability Company, Case No 26-cv-03793-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants' minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are all current or former bartenders who worked at Defendant's restaurant, located at 725 Echo St NW, Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff resides in this District and is a former employee of Defendant, having been employed by Defendant from April 2025 to September 2025. Westside Motor is an indoor-outdoor food, beverage and entertainment experience located on Atlanta's Westside.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra R. Carmon, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Anthony J. Hall, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: acarmon@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ahall@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com SWIFTX INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------- Lunsheng Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SwiftX Inc.; Shuntong H Express Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21462 (Cal. Super., July 7, 2026) contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered economic damages from Defendants' failure to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide compliant meal breaks, failure to provide compliant rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon termination, and failure to reimburse for business expense pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class composed of: All those persons who are or were employed, directly or indirectly, in a non-exempt position by Defendants within the State of California at any time within the four years prior to the filing of the initial Complaint through final judgment. SwiftX is a U.S.-based logistics company founded in May 2025 that provides express delivery services for the e-commerce market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tony Zhao, Esq. Lin Zhan, Esq. EMANATE LAW GROUP P.C. 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450 No. 2184 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 886-5080 E-mail: tony@emanatelaw.com lin@emanatelaw.com TRANSCENDIA INC: Franklin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MARTAE FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSCENDIA, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-07911 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift premium pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, the suit contends. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Machine Operator at Defendant's facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Additional putative collective members were or are employed by Defendant as hourly employees in the United States. The Defendant's website states that it "a leader in manufacturing and converting custom engineered materials designed to protect products and keep people safe and healthy."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com TRAVEL + LEISURE: Spooner Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- DONNA SPOONER, BYRON WORTHEY, and LISA HAMILTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRAVEL + LEISURE RESORT DEVELOPMENT, INC. f/k/a WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC, a Delaware Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00825-UNA (D. Del., July 8, 2026) is a collective and class action arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for common law claims of breach of contract or unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs remote customer service representatives on an hourly basis, but it routinely fails to compensate them for all hours worked, including all overtime hours worked. Consistent with Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, the Plaintiffs and the members of the FLSA Collective were not paid for all premium overtime compensation when they worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Spooner is a Nevada resident who worked for Defendant as a remote CSR in Nevada within the last three years. Travel + Leisure Resort Development, Inc. is a membership and leisure travel company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (734) 234-5583 E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com - and - Oscar A. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC 402 W. Liberty St. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone: (734) 415-9011 E-mail: oscar@orodlaw.com TROP INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wendlandt Says ------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA WENDLANDT, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROP, INC d/b/a "Pink Pony," DENNIS WILLIAMS, MICHAEL A. KAP, and EDDIE STONE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03795-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants pay Plaintiff and other tipped employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provisions, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligation from the tips received from customers. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and the collective wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the overtime rate mandated by the FLSA, asserts the complaint. The Defendants own and/or operate an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia known as the "Pink Pony." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonah A. Flynn, Esq. 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2625 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel/Fax: (404) 835-9660 E-mail: jflynn@flynnfirm.com WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Cray Balks at Pension Plan Administration ------------------------------------------------------------------ LYMAN W. CRAY and VIVIAN WINGO, Plaintiffs v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES of the TRANSIT EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN and the WMATA RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, and WMATA RETIREMENT PLAN AND THE TRANSIT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN, Nominal Defendants, Case No: Case No. 1:26-cv-02393 (D.D.C., July 7, 2026) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of other employees who are participants and beneficiaries of the Pension Plans, to enforce their rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or in the alternative, under District of Columbia law. The action alleges that WMATA has failed to properly maintain and administer its employee pension benefit plans and has erroneously claimed that its Retirement Plans are governmental plans exempt from ERISA. Without the protections of ERISA, the Plaintiffs and the Class are left without any real protections as WMATA claims that its Pension Plans are not protected by either the federal law Congress created with ERISA or by any one state or local government's protections that justify ERISA's exemption for governmental plans. WMATA's failure to have its Pension Plans comply with ERISA harms the participants and beneficiaries in these Pension Plans who rely on these promised pension benefits and who count on these benefits for their retirement, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Cray is a former employee of WMATA. During his employment at WMATA, Plaintiff Cray became a participant, within the meaning of ERISA in two defined benefit pension plans one described as the "WMATA Retirement Plan" and the other described as the "Transit Employees' Retirement Plan." Plaintiff Wingo is the wife of the late Daren Wingo, who was employed by WMATA for over twenty-five years. During Mr. Wingo's employment, he was a participant in the "Transit Employees' Retirement Plan," within the meaning of ERISA. The Plaintiff Wingo was his designated beneficiary in the 'Transit Employees' Retirement Plan." WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY is an interstate compact agency that operates the Metrobus and Metrorail systems in the District of Columbia area, but WMATA is not an agency or instrumentality of any government.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7383 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM, LTD. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1111 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com WHOOP INC: Sanderson Loses Bid for Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON, v. WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order that denies the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion. The Court grants the Defendant's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and False Advertising Law ("FAL") claims, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim to the extent it seeks equitable restitution or injunctive relief, for lack of equitable jurisdiction and dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Court denies the Defendant's motion in all other respects. Accordingly, the Court denies summary judgment as to both parties on the CLRA claim. The claim may proceed to trial on all four elements. The Court also denies the Plaintiff's request for partial summary judgment, presented at the June 26, 2026 hearing, on the threshold question of whether Whoop violated the California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") as a matter of law. Genuine disputes of material fact persist as to several components of the ARL compliance question. These are questions of fact for the jury. The Plaintiff alleges that Whoop sold him an auto-renewing membership without properly disclosing the terms of the auto-renewal deal both before and after purchase. In early-2025, the Court certified a class of: "All persons in California who purchased a Whoop Membership through the Whoop website, were enrolled in [Whoop's] automatically renewing Whoop Membership subscription, and were automatically renewed and charged for at least one renewal term after their initial membership or commitment period ended, during the applicable statute of limitations." The Court also certified a subclass of: "all members of the Class who were automatically renewed and charged for at least one renewal term that they did not use." Whoop sells wearable fitness trackers and a subscription-based membership that allows users to access associated tracking software. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bhMCoo at no extra charge.[CC] X CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Denial of Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, YES CONSULTING, LLC, AUTUMN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., BUSINESS TRAINING WORKS, INC., MEASURING USABILITY LLC, and FOSTER & FORGE LTD., v. X CORP. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER, INC.), Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 10, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., will move the court for an order to issue notice of denial of class certification to class members, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are now pursuing their claims individually. While the Plaintiffs are represented by undersigned counsel, absent class members who are not represented by counsel, and who were relying on the class action to represent their interests, are most likely unaware that they are now on their own and that no case is preserving their rights or pursuing their claims. The Court should require that notice be issued to absent class members in order to alert them to the fact that this case will not proceed as a class action and they must take individual action in order to preserve their claims and protect their rights. Should the Court grant this motion, the Plaintiffs will work with the Defendant to see if an appropriate notice can be agreed upon and to obtain additional needed contact information for absent class members. X Corp. provides a social media and digital communications platform. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SfAGRr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Ellert Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES ELLERT, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01588-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's partial motion to dismiss is granted in part as follows: a. The Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count III) is dismissed without prejudice. b. The Plaintiff's claims on behalf those "that purchased a qualifying Yamaha E-bike" are dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. Any motion for class certification shall limit the class to purchasers of the 2024 Yamaha Wabash RT. c. The motion is otherwise denied. 2. If the Plaintiff wishes to submit a second amended complaint aimed at correcting the pleading deficiencies identified in this order, he shall do so on or before July 20, 2026. Because the deadline for amending the pleadings expired on Jan. 12, 2026, the Plaintiff shall exclude from the second amended complaint any claims not asserted in the amended complaint, unless prior to filing the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff satisfies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by establishing "good cause" and seeking "the [court]'s consent," Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), in a motion that fully complies with all applicable Local Rules. 3. The Defendant shall answer the Plaintiff's amended complaint on or before July 21, 2026. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had abandoned claims over bike models which the Plaintiff had not purchased. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff attempts to revive these claims. However, the Plaintiff is "not now entitled to resurrect a previously abandoned issue." The Defendant sells electric power-assisted bicycles, or e-bikes. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kqeaE2 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***