260722.mbx

260722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 22, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 145 Headlines AAMP OF FLORIDA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ABF FREIGHT: All Class Certification Dates Vacated in Gaddis Suit ACCELLION INC: Bid to Modify Order on Class Certification Tossed AIR-GP LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Phelps Due August 19 ALASKA: Andrew Appeals Federal Lawsuit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ALTO PHARMACY: Muhammad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AM RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Social Casino Suit for $200MM AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Appeals Remand Order in Rios Suit to 9th Cir. AMERICAN GIRL: Kucera Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Hoag Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Safari Browser's Privacy Features APPLE INC: Parties in Kapil Suit Seek to Modify Case Schedule APPLE MUSIC: Standing Order Entered in Winfrey Class Action APRIA HEALTHCARE: Drake Suit Seeks OT Wages for Customer Reps ASPIRE HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $400,000 AVERHEALTH HOLDINGS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint BITGO HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set August 7 BLOCK INC: Agrees to $45MM Fraud Multistate Class Settlement BUFFALO, NY: Franklin Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit BURRTEC WASTE: Jackson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code CANADA: Gun Lobby Sues Over Compensation for Banned Firearms CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 5, 2027 CASE & ASSOCIATES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach CAULER CONTAINERS: O'Donnell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CEXP REALTY: Bid to Extend Scheduling Deadlines in Hollis OK'd CHEX SYSTEMS: Briefing Sched for Summary Judgment Bid Stayed CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON: Lopez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website COMMUNICARE FAMILY: Nurses Wage Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK CONNECTICUT COLLEGE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 1 CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 21, 2027 CORT BUSINESS: Faces Rios Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CORTLAND MANAGEMENT: Knight Sues Over Deceptive Rent Pricing Scheme COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Response Due July 31 COVE SURF: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Sales on Website CRACKER BARREL: Show Cause Order Entered in Iptak Class Action CROCS INC: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Party, Kirkpatrick Says CSRNC LLC: Adams Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division CVS PHARMACY: Hubley Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. DAI HACHI: Hok Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA DENICOLA CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA DISH FOOD: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums Under FLSA, NYLL DOT FOODS: Clanton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ELEMENT SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Sale to Solstice Advanced EMINENCE SPEAKER: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ENTERPRISE FLEET: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response EPICE EATS: Felton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages EPSILON BUILDERS: Duarte Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ESTEE LAUDER: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FIESTA INSURANCE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FIRST ADVANTAGE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Langford Alleges FIRST AMERICAN: Paredes Balks at Use of Property Owners' Info FIRSTSOURCE HEALTHPLANS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Certification Bid in Gardner Due August 24 FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Tariffs FRESNO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 26, 2028 GEMINI TRUST: Abramow Suit Removed to D.N.J. GENIUS GROUP: Federson Investigates Potential Securities Claims GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims GLOBAL PLASMA: Court Decertifies Class in Fislock GLUCOBIT INC: Marshall Sues Over Unsecured Clients' Personal Info GOOD DOG: Class Cert Hearing in Rounds Suit Set for August 31 GOOD HEALTH: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, AWA GOOGLE LLC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Illegal Face Detention Feature GPGI INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities' Law Violations GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: Appeals Court Order in O.R. Suit to 4th Cir. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Engages in Rental Unit Price Scheme, Suit Says GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 21 HARD EIGHT: Miran Must Show Cause for Failure to File Class Cert HAVEN TECHNOLOGIES: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website HAZA FOODS: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 24 HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3MM HENRY FORD: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Mansee-Persson Claims HESS BAKKEN: Penman Seeks Class Cert Bid Oral Argument HOLOGIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cameron Says HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Hite-Reid Suit Alleges INTUIT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 8 INTUIT INC: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Calif. INVITAE CORP: Discloses Private Genetic Info Without Consent JANTEX BUILDING: Lopez Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge JOHN RIFE: Seeks Extension to Respond on Soumare Bid to Stay JOSEPH BIDEN: Haitian Bridge Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid JUST CANDY: Wilson Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website JUSTFAB LLC: Faces Santana Class Action Suit Over Tariff Surcharges JVCKENWOOD USA: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KENTUCKY HOME: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website L'OREAL USA: Deceptively Markets Baby Products, Raymundo Alleges LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Henson Alleges LASERSHIP INC: Bid to Modify Case Management Schedule Tossed LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $812,900 LENS.COM INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Martin Suit to 11th Cir. LMB MORTGAGE: Faces Esparza Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Spamming LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Filing Modified to Oct. 2 LOWE'S HOME: Lewis Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. LUCILE SALTER: Bid for Provisional Class Cert. Partly OK'd LUNCHBOX INC: Adds Junk Fees to Consumers' Carts, Goldstein Says M3 NURSERIES: Renteria Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code MARKEL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Farris Says MATHWORKS INC: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Lowry Suit Alleges MATRIX BOTTLING: Garcia Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA MAX NASTASEE: All Claims Against Schuylkill County Dismissed MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $3-Mil. MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dries Suit Alleges MERIDIAN OF ILLINOIS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach META PLATFORMS: Judge Likely to Advance Suit Over Hacked Accounts MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit MISSISSIPPI: Fuselier Appeals Civil Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit MISSOURI: Appeals Amended Class Cert. Order in Darrington Suit MLD SOLUTIONS: Dominguez Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA MMC MATERIALS: Jones Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA MONROE ENERGY: Residents Balks at Massive Gasoline Leak in Penn. NEXTCURE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With Avere Therapeutics NFL PLAYER: Bid to Seal Unredacted Opposition OK'd NIGHT US: Settles Discounted Mattress Class Action for $8.163MM NORTH MEMORIAL: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Party, Kaliher Says NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Hall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NORTON NATIONAL: Hernandez Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Cal. ONE DEE: Martinez Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA OPEN LENDING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to ANV Group PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Class Cert Filing in Smith Due May 3, 2027 PAYACTIV INC: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit PEADEN LLC: Final Scheduling Order Entered in Smelkinson Suit PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: PeopleShare Sue Over Labor Law Class Suit PINE LAKE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges PLANET FITNESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 14 PLANET FITNESS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit POSH PEANUT: Gautam Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. QUEST HOSPITALITY: Anich Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification RAPID INVESTMENTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class RBC GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Trailer Fees Class Action for $45MM REAGAN GOLD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 25 REAGAN GOLD: Parties Seek Amendment of Class Cert Scheduling Order REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit Over Algorithmic Rent-Setting Software RELLEVATE CT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 9 RICHEMONT NORTH: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Homan Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ROBLOX CORP: Extension of Discovery-Related Deadlines Sought ROGUE FABRICATION: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach RUAN TRANSPORTATION: Brown Files Consumer Credit Suit in M.D. Pa. SAFEMOON LLC: $12MM Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval SAFEWAY INC: Asks Court to Set Class Cert Briefing Schedule SDH SERVICES: Magana Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod SECURITAS SECURITY: Patel BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. SIMPLIFIED DRIVER: Dorman Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code SOCIAL SECURITY: Appeals Court Judgment in L.N.P. Suit to 4th Cir. SPACE EXPLORATION: Barati Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff SPARC GROUP: Expert Disclosures Due Nov. 1 SPORTSEDTV INC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $500,000 SPOTHERO INC: Agrees to Settle Parking Fees Class Suit for $975,000 SPOTIFY USA: Standing Order Entered in Winfrey Class Action SSG LOWELL: Faces Jones Employment Suit in Cal. Super. STARBUCKS CORP: Hewitt Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. STIIIZY INC: $2.95MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Oct. 19 STOCKX LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 29, 2027 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: Hart Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA STUBHUB HOLDINGS: CEO Faces Class Action Over Mass Ticket Scalping STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Misled Consumers About Ticket Marketplace TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Certification Bid in Arbuckle Due Nov. 24 TARGET CORP: Sued Over Dog, Cat Foods' Artificial Preservatives TIDWELL POWER: Flores Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code TK TRADING: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store TOTAL VISION: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $475,000 TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Website Tracking Class Action Lawsuit TRACTOR SUPPLY: Harrison Seeks to Certify Classes TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Bid for Clarification Dismissed as Moot UNION CARBIDE: Final Settlement Conference Set for Jan. 11, 2027 UNITED STATES: Seeks Stay of Briefing on Conditional Cert Bid UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Estate Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit VALOR TECHNICAL: Schwartz Suit Seeks Conditional Certification VANDALIA RENTAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Stichting Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal VERTOL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class VF OUTDOOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Beltran Due Oct. 12, 2027 VF OUTDOOR: Class Cert Bid in Beltran Suit Due June 4, 2027 VISION OF HOPE: Miller Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification W.W. GRAINGER: Faces Yeager Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. WALT DISNEY: $50MM Settlement Deadline for Exclusion Set Dec. 1 WALTER KIDDE: Caro Files Fraud Suit in M.D. Fla. WASHINGTON POST: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach WAYNE SCOTT: Bid for Class Certification in Duvall Suit Due Oct. 19 WEX INC: Faces Kemp Class Suit Over Unlawful Processing Fees WHALECO INC: Faces New Class Action Over Deceptive Emails WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Drexler Class Suit Over Mass Layoff WICKED TACO: Gonzalez Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd WILMER CUTLER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach WWEX FRANCHISE: Zishka Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 10th Cir. YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info YELLOW CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Lamker Says YONKERS, NY: Taylor Seeks Summary Judgment on Individual Claims ZUMBA FITNESS: Class Cert Response Extended to July 22 ZUMBA FITNESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ********* AAMP OF FLORIDA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. AAMP OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05906 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.audiocontrol.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Spike Series 12" High-Performance Subwoofer from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, 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. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MILTON WILLIAMS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant AAMP OF FLORIDA, INC. operates the AudioControl online retail store, as well as the AudioControl interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's speakers, subwoofers, and amplifiers, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ABF FREIGHT: All Class Certification Dates Vacated in Gaddis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDRICK GADDIS, ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09681-CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marshall entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' ex parte application to vacate, or alternatively continue, class certification dates and deadlines. All class certification dates and deadlines currently set are vacated, to be reset at a future date, after resolution of the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. ABF provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PVUEHh at no extra charge.[CC] ACCELLION INC: Bid to Modify Order on Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order denying motion to modify order on class certification. The Court construes the Plaintiff's motion to modify the order on class certification as a motion for reconsideration. Because there is no basis for reconsideration, the Court strikes the Plaintiff's improperly renewed motion for class certification In sum, the Plaintiffs do not establish that the Motion offers new or newly-discovered facts or law. Indeed, none of the Plaintiffs' briefing addresses whether the Motion meets the standard set out by Civil Local Rule 7-9 at all. Consequently, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted. After hackers accessed a secure file transfer application offered by Accellion, Inc., and exposed the Plaintiffs' data, the Plaintiffs sued Accellion for negligence and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"). In September 2025, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying customer-specific subclasses for nominal damages. Accellion develops and markets software for large organizations to transfer sensitive files and data. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38tpkG at no extra charge.[CC] AIR-GP LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Phelps Due August 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC PHELPS, an individual; BROOKE BENNER, an individual; and ROES 1 through 100 inclusive; v. AIR-GP LLC, a California limited liability company; APARTMENT INCOME REIT, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; APARTMENT INCOME REIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; APARTMENT INCOME REIT CORP., a Maryland corporation; OP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-04894-MCS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order modifying schedule of dates and deadlines: Event Dates Non-expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 11, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Feb. 5, 2027 Deadline to file a motion for class Aug. 19, 2026 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to Sept. 9, 2026 the motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support Sept. 30, 2026 of the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class Oct. 19, 2026, at certification: 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sMOicf at no extra charge.[CC] ALASKA: Andrew Appeals Federal Lawsuit Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ANDREW, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled John Andrew, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Heidi Hedberg, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-SLG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of federal law: (1) failure to timely process Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) initial and recertification applications; (2) failure to ensure that Alaskans can submit SNAP applications on the first day they contact the agency; (3) failure to provide written notice and opportunity to request a fair hearing to SNAP applicants whose eligibility was not determined within legally mandated timeframes; and (4) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment. On Sept. 15, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding first-contact-filing claim. On May 21, 2026, Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment regarding first-contact-filing claim is granted in part. On May 28, 2026, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Defendant's motions on all federal claims are granted. The Plaintiffs' state law claim is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Andrew, et al. v. Hedberg, Case No. 26-4167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 6, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 10, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN ANDREW, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher Young, Esq. DLA PIPER, LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121 - and - Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. CALIFORNIA JUSTICE PROJECT 35 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 710 Pasadena, CA 91101 - and - James J. Davis, Jr., Esq. Nicholas Clark Feronti, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G. Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Defendant-Appellee HEIDI HEDBERG, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Health, is represented by: Jeffrey G. Pickett, Esq. David Andrew Wilkinson, Esq. ALASKA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 - and - Lael Alta Harrison, Esq. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW Office of the Attorney General 123 4th Street, 6th Floor Juneau, AK 99801 ALTO PHARMACY: Muhammad Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Muhammad, et al., v. Alto Pharmacy LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion extending deadline to file its class certification from July 16, 2026, to Sept. 4, 2026. The request is made because the parties are in the process of completing the remaining discovery necessary for the Plaintiff's class certification motion. Specifically, the Plaintiff is working with the Defendants' counsel to finalize dates and times for depositions of the initial group of opt-in plaintiffs. The dates presently being coordinated are July 16, 20, 21, 22, and 23, 2026, with two depositions anticipated to occur on each of those days. The requested extension to Sept. 4, 2026, would permit the Plaintiff to complete this final discovery and file a more complete motion before the Courts September 14, 2026, case management conference. The parties are working cooperatively and making substantial progress toward completing this remaining discovery. Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CcWp9V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq. T. A. BLACKBURN LAW, PLLC 1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11236 Telephone: (347) 342-7432 E-mail: tblackburn@tablackburnlaw.com AM RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AM Retail Group, Inc. and Icon DE Holdings LLC d/b/a Starter, Case No. 0:26-cv-03207-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., July 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.starter.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Social Casino Suit for $200MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Cho, writing for FishDuck, reports that Amazon has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit tied to the sale and distribution of virtual casino chips, in a deal that could return more than $200 million to members of the class. According to court documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Amazon has submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, closing out a legal fight that has dragged on for years. What the Lawsuit Alleged The case centered on so-called "social casino" products, apps and platforms that let users play slot machine-style or casino-style games using virtual chips rather than real money. Plaintiffs in these types of suits typically argue that because players can purchase additional chips with real currency once their free allotment runs out, the games function as a form of illegal gambling under certain state laws, even though no direct cash payout is offered to winners. Social casino litigation has become a recurring theme across the tech and gaming industries in recent years, as regulators and private plaintiffs scrutinize the line between free-to-play entertainment and unlicensed gambling. Washington state, where this case was filed, has historically taken an aggressive stance on gambling-adjacent products, including its well-documented crackdown on sweepstakes-style casino platforms. Terms of the Settlement Per the court filing cited by SBC Americas, Amazon's proposed settlement would make more than $200 million available to eligible members of the class. The motion for preliminary approval is a procedural step that asks the court to sign off on the settlement terms before formal notice goes out to class members and a final approval hearing is scheduled. As is standard in large class-action settlements, the process still requires a judge's sign-off, a notice period for affected consumers, and a final fairness hearing before any payouts are distributed. Additional details on eligibility requirements and the timeline for compensation were not specified in the filing. Why It Matters for the Gaming Industry The settlement adds to a growing list of legal actions targeting free-to-play casino-style apps, a category that has expanded rapidly alongside the broader boom in regulated sports betting and online casino gaming across the United States. These lawsuits have increasingly forced major tech and gaming companies to answer for how their virtual-currency systems are structured and marketed to consumers. The case is separate from Oregon's regulated betting market, where the Oregon Lottery's sportsbook does not take wagers on college sports. Readers interested in social casino or online gaming products should note that these apps operate under different legal frameworks than licensed sports betting, and anyone who chooses to gamble, whether through licensed or social platforms, should do so responsibly and only if they are 21 or older. [GN] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Appeals Remand Order in Rios Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Christine Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02220-JNW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, which was removed from King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, is brought against the Defendants for labor violations. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On Nov. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to State Court, which Judge Jamal N. Whitehead granted on June 17, 2026. The Court remands this matter to King County Superior Court. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The appellate case is styled as Rios v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-4146, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINE RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Hannah Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendants-Petitioners AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al. are represented by: Stephanie Schuster, Esq. Pranav Mulpur, Esq. Brian D. Buckley, Esq. Damon Elder, Esq. Andrea D. Ostrovsky, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 AMERICAN GIRL: Kucera Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- TROY KUCERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GIRL, LLC, AMERICAN GIRL BRANDS, LLC, and MATTEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-07264 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment/restitution, money had and received, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendants' systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to their own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants are obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. American Girl, LLC is a manufacturer of dolls and accessories, headquartered in Segundo, California American Girl Brands, LLC is a manufacturer of dolls and accessories, headquartered in Segundo, California Mattel, Inc. is the parent company of American Girl, LLC, headquartered in Segundo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 Email: lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Michael Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Hoag Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JACE HOAG, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ANASTASIA BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, Case No. 26-2-03550-34 (Filed June 11, 2026) was removed Thurston County Superior Court to the United States District Court Western District of Washington on July 13, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05773 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff generally alleges that ABH violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington's Consumer Protection Act by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false or misleading information in the subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the greater of actual or liquidated damages of $500 per violation, treble damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to statute. Anastasia develops and sells beauty and cosmetics products. The Company provides beauty education and tutorials, and specializes in eyebrow.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nikki E. Dobay, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 E-mail: Nikki.Dobay@gtlaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Safari Browser's Privacy Features ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Sarah Simpson filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. Why: Simpson claims Apple falsely advertised Safari as protecting users from online tracking while allowing third parties to track them through browser fingerprinting. Where: The Safari class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Apple misled consumers by advertising Safari as protecting users from online tracking while allowing third parties to track them through browser fingerprinting. Plaintiff Sarah Simpson claims Apple misled consumers about the privacy features of its Safari web browser, which allegedly fails to protect users from tracking by third parties. Simpson argues Apple misrepresents Safari as a private and secure browser, alleging the company's advertising campaign promises that Safari prevents tracking by third parties. "Apple has made privacy its brand, even going so far as saying: 'Privacy. That's Apple,'" the Safari class action lawsuit says. "Apple's practices disregard their consumers' privacy preferences and expectations." Simpson claims Apple's Safari web browser transmits large amounts of user data to third parties, allowing advertisers to track consumers' online activities. "Apple's practices infringe upon consumers' privacy; intentionally deceive consumers; give third parties power to learn intimate details about individuals' lives, interests and web browser usage; and allow third parties to use consumers' browsing data for their own benefit," the Safari class action lawsuit says. Simpson wants to represent a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased an Apple device with the Safari web browser pre-installed. Safari web browser fails to prevent tracking, privacy lawsuit claims Apple's Safari web browser allegedly transmits information about users' web browsers and devices to every website they visit, the Apple class action says, adding that this information is used for "fingerprinting," a method of tracking users by creating a unique profile for each user. Simpson argues Apple's Safari web browser fails to prevent fingerprinting and does not accurately flag fingerprinting scripts in its privacy report, even in private browsing mode. The class action lawsuit claims Safari's default settings do not protect users from fingerprinting and that users must make changes in Safari's settings to enable any kind of fingerprinting protection. Simpson claims Apple's alleged misrepresentations led consumers to believe that Safari would protect their privacy, causing them to pay a premium for Apple products. The Safari class action lawsuit raises claims for breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In other Apple news, two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, alleging the company used pirated books to train its Apple Intelligence AI models. The plaintiff is represented by Jae K. Kim and Tiffine E. Malamphy of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The Apple Safari class action lawsuit is Simpson v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-06307, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. [GN] APPLE INC: Parties in Kapil Suit Seek to Modify Case Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDEEP KAPIL, GABRIELA GOMEZ, KIM SALLEN, and DANYELL SHIN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-09304-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to modify case schedule as follows: 1. The Court will hold a Further Case Management Conference on Dec. 1, 2026 (or as soon as reasonably practicable after that date) to address the status of the three related actions, including discovery, and whether any further modifications to the overall schedule may be necessary; 2. Seven (7) days before the conference, the parties shall submit a Joint Case Management Statement; 3. The current Scheduling Order shall be modified as set forth below: Event Deadline Deadline to file motion for certification Feb. 15, 2027 of class: Deadline to file response to motion for March 22, 2027 class certification: Hearing on motion for certification of May 19, 2027 at class: 9:00 a.m. Close of expert discovery: Oct. 28, 2027 Hearing on dispositive and Daubert motions: March 1, 2028 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are actively continuing to negotiate the remaining disputed terms of the protective order, and the Plaintiffs will file a motion within 30 days seeking this Court's intervention if an agreement on the protective order cannot be reached. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I9Mnba at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. Adam M. Bucci, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com abucci@bholaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 W. Randolph Street, #1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. Jason C. Lo, Esq. Dana Lynn Craig, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: kscolnick@gibsondunn.com jlo@gibsondunn.com dcraig@gibsondunn.com APPLE MUSIC: Standing Order Entered in Winfrey Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENE WINFREY, v. APPLE MUSIC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10547-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered a standing order as follows: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Apple Music has appeared and moved to dismiss the claims against it. The plaintiff must either: (1) amend his Complaint or (2) respond to the motion to dismiss. In deference to plaintiff's pro se status, the Court extends his time to amend the Complaint or respond to the motion to dismiss until Aug. 6, 2026. The Plaintiff must submit his Amended Complaint (or, in the alternative, his papers in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss) to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit no later than August 6, 2026. If the plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint, he must caption the document "Amended Complaint," and label it with the docket number of this action: 25-CV-10547. 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 the defendant's motion to dismiss, his claims may be dismissed. 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, at his address of record: P.O. Box 45, 118 E 124th St., New York, NY 10035. Apple Music is a music streaming service launched by Apple in June 2015. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DBI9At at no extra charge.[CC] APRIA HEALTHCARE: Drake Suit Seeks OT Wages for Customer Reps ------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA DRAKE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01449-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law by systematically failing to compensate their Representatives for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which resulted in Representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked and overtime gap time when associated with unpaid time and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate Representatives for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and software prior to clocking in to Defendant's timekeeping system each shift. The Defendant heavily relied on Representatives to, among other things, answer inbound calls, respond to customer inquiries, and coordinate collection activities. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt Representative. Regardless of the specific job title, all Representatives were paid on an hourly basis; classified as non-exempt employees; regularly worked forty (40) or more hours per workweek; relied on a computer and essential computer programs to perform their job duties daily, performed work off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system and subject to the same relevant policies. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC is a U.S. provider of home medical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff S. Gibson, Esq. WAGNER REESE LLP 11939 N. Meridian Street Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 689-0008 - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MH 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4025 E-mail: jrusch@sommerspc.com ASPIRE HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $400,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Aspire Health Alliance has agreed to a $400,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the behavioral healthcare center failed to protect sensitive patient and employee information from a September 2023 data breach. The $400,000 Aspire Health Alliance settlement received preliminary court approval on June 4, 2026. The deal covers all living individuals who were sent a notice by South Shore Mental Health Center (doing business as Aspire Health Alliance) that their private information may have been impacted in the September 2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the Aspire Health Alliance class action settlement can be found at AspireDataIncident.com. Aspire Health settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses arising from the data breach. This benefit covers losses incurred between September 13, 2023 and September 16, 2026 due to identity theft and fraud and costs for freezing and unfreezing credit, credit monitoring, notary, fax, postage, copying, mileage, long-distance telephone charges, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. Class members who do not submit a claim for documented out-of-pocket losses will automatically receive a pro rata cash payment from the settlement. These individuals can update their address or choose a digital payment on this page. Finally, all class members will receive one year of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes medical record monitoring and medical identity theft insurance. To receive a reminder email containing enrollment instructions for medical data monitoring once the settlement becomes final, head to this page and enter your login ID and PIN to proceed. To submit an Aspire Health settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Aspire Health Alliance settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than September 16, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Aspire Health Alliance settlement final approval following a hearing on October 1, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Aspire Health Alliance class action lawsuit alleged that the Massachusetts-based healthcare provider, which offers intervention, mental health treatment, and recovery programs, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the private information of current and former patients and employees from a data breach discovered on or around September 13, 2023. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, dates of birth, dates of medical services, individual health insurance policy numbers, physician or medical facility information, medical condition or treatment information, Medicare or Medicaid numbers, and patient account numbers. [GN] AVERHEALTH HOLDINGS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Averhealth data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Averhealth data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Averhealth Security Incident: What Happened? Averhealth, a nationwide substance use disorder recovery and laboratory testing company, has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. According to an online notice, Avertest Inc., of which Averhealth Holdings is the parent company, detected unusual activity in its email environment on January 20, 2026. An investigation with external cybersecurity professionals revealed that between December 19, 2025 and January 21, 2026 an unauthorized party gained access to its network. On May 6, 2026, Averhealth discovered that the sensitive information potentially affected by the breach included names, clinical information, diagnoses, digital/electronic signatures, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, health insurance policy-related numbers, medical costs, medical dates of service, medical history, medical provider names, medical record numbers, medical treatment/procedure information, mental or physical conditions, patient account numbers and Social Security numbers. Not all the listed information was impacted for all individuals. Averhealth began sending notices to affected individuals on July 2, 2026, a sample of which is shown below. Although it is currently unknown how many individuals were affected by the Averhealth data breach in total, 34 Massachusetts residents were impacted. What You Can Do After the Averhealth Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Averhealth data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Averhealth to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Weinraub Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WEINRAUB, on behalf of himself and as representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, and as next friend of Barbara Korman, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-03780-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to docket the proposed Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. The Court grants the Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s motion to dismiss as to any claim asserted by the Plaintiff other than his individual claim as a beneficiary of the trust. The Court also grants the motion to strike the class allegations of the amended complaint. The Court agrees with the Bank's assessment that the out-of-circuit cases Weinraub cites to the contrary are unpersuasive and distinguishable. Weinraub offers no precedent for a trust, supposedly acting through its trustee, suing itself for breach of fiduciary duty. Moreover, all but one of the cases appears to involve unique circumstances related to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, through which certain plans or trust funds are statutorily authorized to sue, the Court adds. Weinraub alleges that Bank of America breached its fiduciary duties as trustee by purchasing "excessively expensive" insurance coverage for the Property. The Amended Complaint proposes three alternative classes of progressively smaller scope: (1) the "Nationwide Class," (2) the "Multistate Class," and (3) the "Georgia Class." The Nationwide Class would include "all trusts for which [Bank of America] served or continues to serve as trustee in which [Bank of America] has, between Aug. 26, 2022 and the date this class is certified, charged the trust for insurance through a master trust insurance program for residential real property held by the trust." The proposed Multistate Class would include: "all trusts for which [Bank of America] served or continues to serve as trustee, administered out of one of the Aligned States, whose trust agreement has no choice-of-law provision or selects the law of one the Aligned States, in which [Bank of America] has, between Aug. 26, 2022 and the date this class is certified, charged the trust for insurance through a master trust insurance program for residential real property held by the trust." The Georgia Class would include: "all trusts for which [Bank of America] served or continues to serve as trustee, administered out of Georgia and whose trust agreement has no choice-of-law provision or selects the law of one of the Aligned States, in which [Bank of America] has, between Aug. 26, 2022 and the date this class is certified, charged the trust for insurance through a master trust insurance program for residential real property held by the trust." The Defendant is a major global financial institution. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0bv5V0 at no extra charge.[CC] BITGO HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set August 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BitGo Holdings, Inc. ("BitGo" or the "Company") (NYSE:BTGO) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 26-cv-03428, is on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired (a) BitGo Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's January 22, 2026 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) BitGo securities between January 22, 2025 and May 13, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired BitGo securities during the Class Period, you have until August 7, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. BitGo operates as a digital asset infrastructure company, offering a platform on which its customers may store, trade, and stake digital assets. The Company reports its revenue in segments including, as relevant here, Digital Asset Sales, which is derived from the total value of trading volume of digital asset trades during the relevant reporting period, and Staking, which is primarily comprised of revenues associated with rewards issued by a relevant blockchain protocol, typically in form of the blockchain network's digital asset. On September 19, 2026, BitGo filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on January 21, 2026 (the "Registration Statement"). On January 22, 2026, BitGo conducted the IPO, selling 11,821,595 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at the initial offering price of $18.00 per share for proceeds of over $187.58 million to the Company, before expenses, and after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions. On January 23, 2026, BitGo filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants understated the scope and severity of the risk that declining digital asset prices posed to Company's business and financial performance; (ii) consequently, Defendants' statements regarding, inter alia, BitGo's financial performance and business prospects as a public company lacked a reasonable basis; and (iii) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and/or failed to state information required to be stated therein. On March 26, 2026, BitGo issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results. Among other items, BitGo reported a net loss of $14.8 million for 2025, compared to $156.6 million in net income for 2024, a quarterly margin of 0.21% in its Digital Asset Sales segment, compared to a quarterly margin of 0.47% in the prior year, and declined to offer specific revenue guidance for the first quarter of 2025. BitGo stated that the change in its annual net loss was "materially driven by declines in digital asset prices impacting the Company's Bitcoin treasury." Defendants also declined to provide explicit guidance for the first fiscal quarter of 2026, even though the quarter would end just five days later. Instead, Defendants merely provided general commentary to the effect that BitGo's revenue streams faced "a direct impact" from a "challenging" macroeconomic environment. On this news, BitGo's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or 15.71%, to close at $7.67 per share on March 27, 2026. Then, on May 13, 2026, BitGo issued a press release announcing its business and financial results for the first fiscal quarter of 2026. Among other items, BitGo reported a net loss of $60.7 million, compared to a net loss of $25.7 million in the same quarter one year earlier. BitGo stated that its quarterly net loss "reflected weaker market conditions, approximately $3.0 million of one-time legal and professional costs associated with the IPO and other strategic initiatives, and continued investment in product, platform, and go-to-market capabilities". On this news, BitGo's stock price fell $2.05 per share, or 17.2%, to close at $9.86 on May 14, 2026. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] BLOCK INC: Agrees to $45MM Fraud Multistate Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Block Inc., the parent company of Cash App, agreed to a multistate settlement with 46 state attorneys general. Why: The states alleged Block misled consumers about Cash App's safety and failed to adequately protect users from fraud. Where: The Cash App settlement was filed in state court in Oregon, with parallel consent judgments entered in participating states. Block agreed to pay $45 million to resolve allegations by 46 states that it misled consumers about the safety of Cash App and failed to provide the fraud protections it promised. The multistate settlement resolves an investigation led by the attorneys general of Oregon and Texas into Block's consumer protection practices involving Cash App, a mobile payment platform used to send, receive and store money. According to the settlement, the states alleged Block made representations about Cash App's safety, refund protections and customer support while allegedly failing to adequately protect consumers from fraud and to comply with certain legal requirements. The consent judgment also addresses allegations related to account locks, account suspensions, fraud communications and compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the investigation found that Block assured consumers their money was safe while allegedly failing to deliver the fraud protections and dispute resolution it advertised. "When things went wrong, Block left them with nowhere to turn," Rayfield said, as reported by Law360. Block denies any wrongdoing and stated the agreement resolves "a previously disclosed legacy matter that primarily relates to historical aspects of our business." The company said it has since made significant investments in consumer protection, customer service and compliance. Cash App settlement to require enhanced fraud protections Under the Cash App settlement, Block will pay $45 million in civil penalties, which will be distributed among the participating states. In addition to the monetary payment, Block agreed to maintain and implement a series of consumer protection measures related to Cash App. The consent judgment requires the company to maintain customer support for fraud complaints, provide 24-hour telephone support and educate consumers about common fraud schemes. According to the consent judgment, Block does not admit liability or any violation of law by entering into the agreement. The settlement resolves allegations concerning conduct occurring before the agreement's July 8, 2026, effective date. A Block spokesperson said the company shares the commitment of the attorneys general to addressing fraud and will continue investing in operations and technology designed to promote a safer financial ecosystem. The participating states include New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and 39 other states. Last year, Block agreed to pay $12.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it sent unsolicited text messages through Cash App's "Invite Friends" referral program. The states are represented by their respective attorneys general. The Cash App settlement is State of Oregon ex rel. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General for the State of Oregon v. Block Inc., Case No. ORS 20.140, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. [GN] BUFFALO, NY: Franklin Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DORETHEA FRANKLIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Black Love Resists in the Rust, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-719, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints. Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers, in accordance with an implicit quota system, continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the Plaintiffs also filed their motion for partial summary judgment. On May 29, 2026, Judge Christina Clair Reiss entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned Black Love Resists v. City of Buffalo, Case No. 26-1763, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DORETHEA FRANKLIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrea Chinyere Ezie, Esq. Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF BUFFALO, et al. are represented by: Cheyenne Nicole Freely, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Building, Suite 100 140 Pearl Street Buffalo, NY 14202 BURRTEC WASTE: Jackson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN JACKSON, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 26STCV21571 (Cal. Super., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and Professions Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from October 2017 to April 2026 as residential commercial driver. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, the Defendants' timekeeping and/or payroll policies and practices resulted in Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees not being compensated for all hours actually worked. Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees regularly worked more than eight hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were not compensated for all earned minimum and overtime wages, says the suit. The Defendants own and operate a trash disposal company in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. TIFFANY L. LUU, Esq. Joseph C. Ramli, Esq. Guneez Ibrahim, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 9575 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Telephone: (323) 922-2000 Facsimile: (323) 922-2000 E-Mail: william@justiceforworkers.com tluu@justiceforworkers.com jramli@justiceforworkers.com gibrahim@justiceforworkers.com CANADA: Gun Lobby Sues Over Compensation for Banned Firearms ------------------------------------------------------------ FireArmRights.ca reports that Canada's gun lobby, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (The CCFR), filed an unprecedented class action application against the Federal Government utilizing recent amendments to Saskatchewan's Provincial Firearms Act. The action aims to hold the Federal Government to their promise to compensate licensed gun owners for their lawfully acquired property made worthless after the May 1, 2020 firearm bans and subsequent actions. This is the latest countermeasure The CCFR has launched to protect licensed gun owners against an unreasonable and overreaching Liberal government. If successful, a certified class action would force the government to pay full and fair compensation to affected residents of Saskatchewan for not only their banned firearms, but for other affected property such as accessories and in some cases, ammunition. This case will significantly impact decisions currently under consideration by other provinces and territories regarding the government's embattled firearm bans and "compensation program". Background On May 1, 2020, the Federal Government launched a 5-year series of firearm bans applying only to legally acquired and possessed firearms. The federal government committed to "fairly" compensating licensed firearm owners for their property as the misuse occurring in Canada was not of their making. After five and a half years from their initial announcement, the government rolled out a shameful version of a "compensation program", one that featured multiple disincentives to participation. "10.1 The Recipient acknowledges that under section 40 of the Financial Administration Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11), any payment under this Agreement is subject to an annual appropriation for the fiscal year in which any commitment hereunder would come in course of payment. Therefore, the funding amount may be reduced or terminated at the Minister's discretion in response to the government's annual budget or a parliamentary spending decision that has an impact on the Program under which this Agreement is made." The owner of the property in question wouldn't know whether or not they're getting paid or how much until they expose what they own to the government and ship them the property. See the end of this document for more examples of the government disincentivizing law abiding gun owners from participating in this program. Along with dozens of law enforcement agencies across Canada, most provinces and territories have pushed back against the government's actions against (exclusively) licensed gun owners while leaving criminals alone. Class Action Lawsuit In November 2025, the government of Saskatchewan brought in amendments to the Saskatchewan Firearms Act. These amendments were carefully drafted to provide specific protection to the residents of that province who legally owned firearms. In short, the legislation ensures that if the government enacts law, regulation or policy that diminishes or destroys the value of property, the government must pay for it at fair market value. Considering this common sense legislation, the CCFR is initiating a class action lawsuit on behalf of the affected residents of Saskatchewan. Claiming losses via this legislation could not be done at small claims court, these claims would have to be addressed at the Court of the King's Bench. This would prevent many affected persons from participating as the costs would be too high. The CCFR has decided to assume this burden and filed this action on July 14th, 2026. If the CCFR wins this case, every affected resident of Saskatchewan would have a full price claim against the government for any property that was affected. This applies to the 1550 models of firearms that were banned on May 1st, 2020, approximately 800 additional models subsequently banned by the RCMP, estates of handgun owners deprived of their inheritances and more. If successful, these claims could represent hundreds of millions of dollars in Saskatchewan alone. Other provinces are considering similar legislation and the CCFR is considering a similar role in those jurisdictions as well. If the government were to pay fair compensation across the country, as they promised, the cost could be as high as eight to twelve billion; including administration costs. An important aspect of this story is that this legislation is not intended to stop or obstruct the so-called "Compensation Program" nor repeal the Order in Council that caused it all. This legislation merely ensures that protected residents get compensated as per the government's own promise over the last six years. Other Disincentives -- The government announced a small pool of money, nowhere near enough to compensate for the number of affected firearms in circulation. Estimates range from one to two million of these firearms, though the government budgeted for 136,000 in total. -- The government released the budget number and informed gun owners that they would be in competition with each other for the little funding that was available. This was offensive and demonstrated the government's propensity to deal in bad faith. -- The government provided only two months for licensed gun owners to register for the program. The government informed the public that those who didn't know about the program or didn't register for any other reason, would be excluded with no exceptions. -- The government decided that they wouldn't compensate for anything else that would be rendered worthless such as magazines, specific ammunition or accessories. Licensed gun owners would be stuck with this worthless property with no compensation. -- The government structured the funding agreement and the program such that no one would know whether they're going to get any money at all until their firearm was collected. This specifically created even more distrust and contempt for the government's actions. -- The government's pricing was erratic. There were some firearms that were worth $2500 that the government settled on a price of $600. It is completely reasonable that people wouldn't give up their property when being treated like that. -- Signing the funding agreement was a condition of participation in the program. This agreement provided a myriad of opportunities for the government to change the price offered for firearms or to decline to pay the agreed price entirely. -- The government's program didn't cover taxes paid on any of the property which in some cases could represent thousands of dollars. -- The government felt it necessary to end the amnesty within a few months of the program conclusion. Given all of the incentives not to participate, this put even more pressure on every day, licensed gun owners. This was not received well. It's abundantly clear to any unbiased observer that if this was ever about public safety, the government would have just paid licensed gun owners a reasonable price for their firearms, their accessories and the taxes paid. All the government would have had to do was follow through with a promise they made dozens of times, in public, over nearly six years. It is truly that simple. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that this certified class action has now settled subject to court approval. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) (collectively, "Capital One") will pay $35,000,000 to settle the claims of all class members in Canada except residents of Quebec. The BC Supreme Court will hold a settlement approval hearing at the Court House at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia on September 22, 2026. The claims program includes compensation for time spent responding to the data breach of up to $200 or up to $275 depending on the data that may have been compromised; out of pocket costs for preventative measures (for example, obtaining credit monitoring services); and repayment of annual credit card fees of up to $50. Depending on how many claims are made, class members could receive up to another $750. For further information and more details of the proposed claims program please go the settlement administrators web site at www.capitalone2019classaction.ca. [GN] CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 5, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD GUINARD and JOEL LUNA, individually and for others similarly situated, v. CARDINAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 3:24-cv-00101-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Any party seeking an extension of a deadline set forth in this Class Certification Scheduling Order must file a formal written motion and shall make the required showing for such relief. 2. The parties are ordered to formally mediate this matter by Nov. 16, 2026, and to file a joint mediation report describing the status of settlement negotiations by Nov. 23, 2026. 3. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by Sept. 28, 2026. 4. All discovery regarding Class Certification, including discovery concerning Class Certification expert witnesses, shall be completed by April 5, 2027. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by May 5, 2027. 6. All motions challenging or seeking to disqualify class certification expert witnesses (e.g., Daubert motions) must be filed on or before May 5, 2027. The Defendant provides brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=13myDU at no extra charge.[CC] CASE & ASSOCIATES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Case & Associates data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Case & Associates data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Case & Associates Security Incident: What Happened? Case & Associates, a commercial and residential property management company operating in Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. According to a sample notice mailed to affected individuals, as seen below, Case & Associates discovered on or around March 14, 2026 that an unauthorized actor may have gained access to its network environment. After a forensic investigation and manual document review, the company determined on June 3, 2026 that the affected systems, which were accessed between September 1, 2025 and March 16, 2026, contained personal information. A report filed with the Texas Attorney General's Office suggests that the Case & Associates data breach impacted names and Social Security numbers. Case & Associates has started sending notices to individuals affected by the breach. What You Can Do After the Case & Associates Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Case & Associates data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Case & Associates to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CAULER CONTAINERS: O'Donnell Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI O'DONNELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CAULER CONTAINERS, INC., and WILLIAM C. CAULER, Case No. 5:25-cv-05558-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All current and former Drivers and Loaders who were employed by Cauler Containers, Inc. and/or William C. Cauler, in Pennsylvania, at any time from Sept. 26, 2022 through the final disposition of this matter" (the "Pennsylvania Class" or "Class Members"); 2. Appointing the Plaintiff Jenni O'Donnell as Class Representative; 3. Appointing Clif Alexander, Austin Anderson, and Carter T. Hastings of Anderson Alexander, PLLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g); 4. Directing the Defendants to produce a complete and accurate list of all Class Members, including each Class Member's name, last known mailing address, email address, telephone number, and dates of employment, within 14 days; and 5. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed Class Notice (Ex. 10) and authorizing its distribution to Class Members by U.S. mail, email, and text message. As set forth in the accompanying Brief in Support, the Defendants applied a uniform, automatic thirty-minute meal-break deduction to the daily hours of every Driver and Loader at their single Quarryville, Pennsylvania facility—and never once reversed it—even though Drivers and Loaders regularly worked through their meal periods. Plaintiff satisfies each requirement of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Cauler provides residential waste removal, roll-off and front-load container rental services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MHhRkB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, 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 carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1617 John F Kennedy Blvd #1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com ihuot@faruqilaw.com CEXP REALTY: Bid to Extend Scheduling Deadlines in Hollis OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY, LLC and AARON YOON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00822-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order that: 1. The Parties stipulated motion to extend scheduling deadlines is granted; 2. The deadline to file expert discovery opening reports is extended to Nov. 12, 2026. 3. The deadline to file expert discovery opening reports is extended to Dec. 10, 2026. 4. The deadline for discovery related to class certification is extended to Dec. 31, 2026. 5. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended to Jan. 28, 2027. 6. The deadline to file an opposition to class certification is extended to Feb. 25, 2027. 7. The deadline to file a reply in support of class certification is extended to March 18, 2027. eXp Realty provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMotyz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter M. Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC 1226 State Avenue N.E., Suite 205 Olympia, WA 98506 Telephone: (306) 915-6952 E-mail: walter@smithdietrich.com Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Cassandra Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (206) 682-0401 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com cmiller@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah A. Zielinksi, Esq. Amy Starinieri Gilbert, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Telephone: (312) 849-8288 E-mail: szielinski@mcguirewoods.com agilbert@mcguirewoods.com - and - Nathaniel L. Taylor, Esq. ELLIS, LI & MCKINSTRY PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810 Seattle, WA 98101-1820 Telephone: (206) 682-0565 Fax: (206) 625-1052 Email: ntaylor@elmlaw.com - and - Jason B. Sykes, Esq. NEWMAN LLP 1201 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-2800 E-mail: Jason.newmanlaw.com - and - Kellie Mitchell Bubeck, Esq. BUBECK LAW LLC 5440 W 110th Street, Suite 300 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 340-7206 E-mail: kellie@bubecklaw.com CHEX SYSTEMS: Briefing Sched for Summary Judgment Bid Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON K. RIDDICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00700-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Hanes entered an order granting ChexSystems' motion to consider Daubert motions prior to ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court will recall the Daubert motions that were previously referred to the Magistrate Judge. Riddick's motion to stay is granted in part and denied in part, and it is ordered that the briefing schedule for ChexSystems' motion for summary judgment is stayed until further order of the Court. Given that the parties appear to agree that Daubert motions should be addressed prior to or in conjunction with Plaintiff's pending Motion for Class Certification, the Court will grant ChexSystems' Motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay of the summary judgment briefing schedule is appropriate. The Court's ruling on the pending motions could affect the disposition of any motion for summary judgment filed, which could lead to unnecessarily duplicative motions practice. A stay, however, is inappropriate for the briefing for other non-dispositive motions, and therefore the briefing schedules shall remain in place for any outstanding motion. ChexSystems is an American check verification service and consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pc9LwV at no extra charge.[CC] CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON: Lopez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHROMCRAFT REVINGTON DOUGLAS IND LTD, Case No. 1:26-cv-05809 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.chromcrafthome.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, the last occurring on June 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Casual Dining Chair from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Casual Dining Chair, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: furniture and home décor, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Casual Dining Chair but 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, which prevented him from doing so, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Chromcraft Home online retail store, as well as the Chromcraft Home interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 COMMUNICARE FAMILY: Nurses Wage Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge granted final approval for a settlement in a class action matter that will pay $1 million and provide approximately $1.2 million more in debt relief to a class of approximately 220 nurses in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, and Virginia. This settlement, which was granted preliminary approval in February 2026, resolves allegations that CommuniCare Family of Companies (CommuniCare) and WorldWide HealthStaff Solutions (WorldWide) failed to pay nurses for time worked and used "stay-or-pay" contracts to illegally force nurses to repay immigration costs, plus other alleged penalties for leaving their jobs. Plaintiff Ariane Rose Villarin, who represents a class of similarly situated workers, alleged that CommuniCare and its recruiting agent, WorldWide, entered illegal arrangements in their recruitment efforts in hiring nurses from the Philippines. She alleged that the companies sponsored class members through the immigration process and required them to sign contracts committing to work for them for three years. In the event a worker left employment before three years of work, the Plaintiff alleged that a worker would be expected to pay thousands of dollars to CommuniCare. CommuniCare in fact pursued a number of claims against nurses in state court, seeking tens of thousands in alleged damages. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendants' conduct violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and related laws. "We are grateful to the Court that it approved this settlement on behalf of a class of CommuniCare nurses brought to the United States to provide nursing services," said Hugh Baran, partner at Katz Banks Kumin LLP. "These nurses were saddled with onerous stay-or-pay contracts that kept them from leaving their jobs. This settlement will provide these nurses with significant relief, including the cancellation of alleged debt of current and past employees." "This resolution is an important step toward protecting the rights of internationally recruited healthcare workers, said Magen E. Kellam, partner at the Law Offices of Magen E. Kellam. "We commend our client for the courage she showed throughout this case. We hope her strength serves as an example for others facing similar challenges." "With final approval, the debts that hung over these nurses are now canceled for good," said Juno Turner, litigation director for Towards Justice. "No class member will ever again face a lawsuit or a collection demand for choosing to leave a job. That kind of debt relief is life-changing, and it should be a warning to the nurse staffing industry that stay-or-pay contracts like these won't hold up." Under the now-approved settlement, CommuniCare and WorldWide have agreed to the following: -- To pay $1,000,000 to the class of 218 nurses. -- To fully forgive all outstanding amounts claimed (or that could be claimed) to be owed by Settlement Class members to Defendants. That includes both former and current nurses who decided to end their employment with CommuniCare prior to the end of the contractual term in their contracts with Defendants. -- That they shall not seek to enforce any "repayment" provisions in their contracts, or to recover or collect any amount of money damages or penalties from Settlement Class members, due to the decision to end employment with Defendants prior to the end of their contracts. "This is a meaningful result for approximately 220 nurses," said Patricia Kakalec of Kakalec Law PLLC. "It is real money in their pockets and the permanent cancellation of alleged debts. Employers who use these kinds of contracts should take note that workers will push back when their actions violate the law." Villarin and the Settlement Class are represented by Hugh Baran of Katz Banks Kumin LLP, Patricia Kakalec of Kakalec Law PLLC, Magen E. Kellam of The Law Offices of Magen E. Kellam PA; Juno Turner of Towards Justice, and Gus M. Shihab of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates Co. LPA. Class members have already been notified if they are part of the settlement class. They can consult www.communicaresettlement.com for more information about the settlement. [GN] CONNECTICUT COLLEGE: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murray v. Connecticut College, Case No. 3:24-cv-01099 (D. Conn., Filed June 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of time in light of ongoing settlement discussions: The parties must designate rebuttal experts on or before August 24, 2026. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification must be filed on or before September 1, 2026. All expert witness depositions must be completed on or before September 28, 2026. In light of the age of the case, the Court is unlikely further to extend these deadlines. The nature of suit states Other Statutory Actions -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Connecticut College is a private liberal arts college in New London, Connecticut.[CC] CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 21, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY FUND III LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC and CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered an order granting the seventh joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines. The Court orders that the schedule contained in this Court's Order granting sixth joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines is vacated. The Court further orders that the following dates and deadlines shall control: Event Deadline Fact discovery for class certification Nov. 4, 2026 Discovery deadline (not including expert discovery): The Plaintiff's Rule 26 expert Dec. 2, 2026 disclosures for class certification, including expert report(s) (not filed of record): The Defendants' Rule 26 expert disclosures Feb. 18, 2027 for class certification, including expert report(s) (not filed of record): The Plaintiff's class certification motion: April 21, 2027 The Defendants' class certification response: May 26, 2027 The Plaintiff's class certification reply: July 1, 2027 In Person class certification hearing: Aug. 4, 2027, at 2:00 PM MT Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=opVc0p at no extra charge.[CC] CORT BUSINESS: Faces Rios Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- JESUS ENRIQUE RAMOS RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORT BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21152 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, meal period liability, rest-break liability, failure to keep required payroll records, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Cort Business Services Corporation is a furniture rental services provider, with its principal place of business in Chantilly, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Andrea A. Amaya Silva, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law CORTLAND MANAGEMENT: Knight Sues Over Deceptive Rent Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTA KNIGHT and DANA ARMIJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORTLAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02977-GPG-STV (D. Colo., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising apartment rental prices that exclude mandatory recurring fees required as a condition of tenancy. By advertising one price to consumers and later imposing additional unavoidable charges, the Defendant causes its apartments to appear less expensive than they actually are and deprives consumers of the ability to accurately compare housing options. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful, unfair, and deceptive pricing practices, the Plaintiffs suffered injury and damages and seek all relief available under applicable law, suit says. Cortland Management, LLC is an operator of real estate and apartment communities, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 539-2708 Email: hbryson@brysonpllc.com COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Response Due July 31 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:23-cv-01613-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendants' ex parte application for an order extending their time to file an opposition is denied; 2. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's class certification motion remains due on July 31, 2026. In the absence of a superseding court-ordered schedule, Local Rule 230(b) affords 14days for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's certification motion. The court already provided more than 30 days for the Defendants' response. The court does not find good cause in Defendants' instant motion to extend briefing by yet another 28 days. This case was removed to federal court nearly three years ago. The court cannot determine certification until briefing is concluded, and the Defendants do not persuade the court that the Plaintiff's motion was beyond what could have reasonably been anticipated when Defendants agreed to the current briefing schedule a few weeks ago. Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VZGX9O at no extra charge.[CC] COVE SURF: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Sales on Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Rustle Laich filed a class action lawsuit against Cove Surf Co. Inc., doing business as Cove USA. Why: Laich claims Cove runs fake sales on its website. Where: The Cove class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Cove Surf Co. runs fake sales on its website shopcoveusa.com. Plaintiff Rustle Laich filed the class action complaint against Cove USA on April 1 in California federal court, alleging violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. According to the class action lawsuit, Cove allegedly runs "fake sales" to deceive consumers into making purchases. Cove is a retailer specializing in surf-inspired apparel. The Cove class action lawsuit claims the company violates state laws and the Federal Trade Commission's regulations on price comparisons. Cove allegedly advertises its products at steep discounts from purported regular prices, creating a sense of urgency with claims that these sales are time-limited, the lawsuit says. However, the plaintiff alleges these discounts are perpetual, and the regular prices are not the actual prices at which the products were sold. The plaintiff is looking to represent anyone in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more products advertised at a discount on Cove's website. Cove resets nightly countdown timers to sustain fake urgency, class action claims The Cove class action lawsuit alleges that a December 2025 Holiday Sale advertising "up to 60% off sitewide" was relabeled as a New Year's Sale in January 2026 and a Spring Sale in March 2026, with the same discount rebranded each time as a new, limited-time event. The complaint further claims that a "LIMITED 24HR FLASH SALE" on joggers priced at $29, down from a strikethrough price of $69, reset nightly and continued for nearly four weeks. Plaintiff's counsel confirmed through Wayback Machine archives that the fake sales ran for more than three months, contrary to California's False Advertising Law, which bars advertising former prices not prevailing in the three preceding months. The Cove class action asserts violations of California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as breach of contract, unjust enrichment and misrepresentation claims. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief. In other alleged fake sales online, one of the world's largest e-commerce platforms, Shein, is accused of inflating reference prices to trick consumers into believing they were getting a bargain. What do you think of the claims made in this Cove class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Victor J. Sandoval of Almeida Law Group LLC and Tyler B. Ewigleben and Winston S. Hudson of Jennings & Earley PLLC. The Cove class action lawsuit is Laich v. Cove Surf Company Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00789, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] CRACKER BARREL: Show Cause Order Entered in Iptak Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iptak, et al., v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Incorporated, Case No. 4:26-cv-40149 (D. Mass., Filed June 4, 2026), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an electronic show cause order as follows: Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to file a memorandum addressing what the next steps in this case should be and what issues this Court should be considering in managing this case. The parties should consider whether motions for relief from void orders under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) must be made. The parties should discuss in their memorandum how the tolling of the statute of limitations would be affected if the Arizona court's grant of conditional class certification is voided, and whether any equitable tolling provisions would apply that would cause this Court to apply the claim cut-off dates contemplated by the Arizona court's prior rulings (notwithstanding the later finding of lack of personal jurisdiction). The parties are also invited to raise any other issues that they believe are pertinent at this stage. Finally, the parties should consider the hypothetical situation where this Court adopts the reasoning from the prior Arizona rulings relating to the motion to dismiss, arbitrability, and conditional certification and whether, in such a scenario, either party would stipulate to the holdings of those prior orders. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Cracker operates approximately 660 restaurants and gift shops.[CC] CROCS INC: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Party, Kirkpatrick Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY KIRKPATRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-06792 (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's interception and disclosure of consumers' personally identifiable information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google, LLC, without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed third parties' tracking technologies on its website to track and collect users' web browsing activities for advertising and marketing purposes. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Crocs, Inc. is a footwear manufacturer, with its headquarters in Broomfield, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com CSRNC LLC: Adams Appeals Court Order to N.Y. Appellate Division --------------------------------------------------------------- ELLEN ADAMS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Ellen Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CSRNC, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. EF2024-722, in the Montgomery Supreme Civil Court. The case type is stated as tort. The appellate case is styled as Ellen Adams v. CSRNC, LLC et al., Case No. 26-1120, in the New York Appellate Division's Third Judicial Department, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Respondents CSRNC, LLC, et al. are represented by: Jacqueline Mandell, Esq. KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN LLP 875 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-9600 CVS PHARMACY: Hubley Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Jeff Hubley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Washington CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., and Does 1 through 5, Case No. 26-2-00344-14 (Filed May 21, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Grays Harbor County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma on July 13, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05772 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a variety of putative class claims, including but not limited to failure to pay wages for time worked; failure to pay overtime wages; rest break violations; meal period violations; willful wage withholding; failure to accrue, allow use of, and properly compensate for paid sick leave; and various other recordkeeping, wage statement, and final pay claims. Additionally, the Complaint seeks double damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant operates a retail pharmacy chain in the United States, operating over 9,000 stores nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Albert Kirby, Esq. Debashish Bakshi, Esq. Arman Marukyan, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 521-5121 E-mail: joanna@calljustice.com a.kirby@calljustice.com d.bakshi@calljustice.com arman@calljustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Greta Nelson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Telephone: (206) 946-4910 E-mail: gnelson@seyfarth.com DAI HACHI: Hok Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Premiums Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- HOK BOEN LIONG, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. DAI HACHI SUSHI CORPORATION d/b/a DAI HACHI NYC DAI HACHI SUSHI & BAR CORP. d/b/a DAI HACHI SUSHI & BAR 1074 SUSHI CORP d/b/a DAI HACHI SUSHI & BAR UMI SUSHI, INC. d/b/a UMI SUSHI, AI ZHEN ZHENG, a/k/a TONY ZHENG, JOHN DOE a/k/a TIM ZHENG, ZHEN MEI CHENG, Case No. 1:26-cv-04132 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums due to a fixed salary, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, he and similarly situated individuals were not provided any paid time off for the care of themselves and/or family members. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek all applicable remedies under the law, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code, he and others similarly situated are entitled to damages and fees and costs in this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information forms with the Internal Revenue Service. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Defendants have owned and operated restaurants located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DENICOLA CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- REMIGIO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DENICOLA CONSTRUCTION LLC and DAVID DENICOLA, Case No. 3:26-cv-08390 (D.N.J., July 8, 2026) is a civil action for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant David Denicola and his business operations, including the Corporate Defendant since its formation, for approximately three decades as a landscaping and construction laborer. Although Plaintiff's length of service and experience caused Defendants to designate him the leader of a work crew, he remained at all times a non-exempt manual laborer who performed the same physical landscaping and construction work as the rest of the crew alongside them. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants required him to work approximately 60 hours each week -- roughly 20 hours per week in excess of 40 -- yet willfully refused to pay him the overtime premium required by law. Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiff his straight-time hourly rate of $27 for every hour worked, including the hours he worked beyond forty in a workweek, rather than the required rate of one and one half times his regular rate for those overtime hours, says the suit. The Defendant is a home improvement company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. www.stillmanlegalpc.com 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 DISH FOOD: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------------- GISELA FIGUEROA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. DISH FOOD & EVENTS LLC, RYAN CORVAIA, and AJ HARRlS, Case No. 1:26-cv-05777 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Plaintiff also alleges that, in retaining these sums for themselves, the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendants operate a full service catering company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DOT FOODS: Clanton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- BRENDEN CLANTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOT FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03223-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill., July 13, 2026) challenges labor policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant repeatedly and willfully violated the provisions of federal and state laws by employing Plaintiff for workweeks longer than 40 hours, without compensating them for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee who was paid on an hourly basis. Dot Foods, Inc. operates food distribution hubs throughout the U.S., including at Mount Sterling, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP, LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., #320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP, LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com ELEMENT SOLUTIONS: M&A Investigates Sale to Solstice Advanced ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Element Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: ESI) related to its sale to Solstice Advanced Materials, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Element Solutions shareholders will receive $10.00 in cash and 0.500 shares of Solstice common stock for each Element Solutions share. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Element Solutions shareholders are expected to own approximately 44% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/element-solutions-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNX) related to its sale to Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Crinetics shareholders are expected to receive $85.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/crinetics-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Solstice Advanced Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOLS) related to its merger with Element Solutions, Inc. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/solstice-advanced-materials-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Patrick Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: PATK) related to its merger with LCI Industries. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Patrick shareholders will own approximately 52% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/patrick-industries-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] EMINENCE SPEAKER: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMINENCE SPEAKER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05894 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.eminence.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an L12-40A Speaker 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. He 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 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. Eminence Speaker, LLC operates the website that offers guitar, bass, and professional audio loudspeakers.[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 ENTERPRISE FLEET: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kilgore, et al., v. Enterprise Fleet Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00235 (E.D. Mo., Filed Feb. 17, 2026), the Hon. Judge Maria A. Lanahan entered an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time to file response / reply as to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Enterprise provides fleet management services.[CC] EPICE EATS: Felton Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN FELTON, BROOKE SUGGS AND TIFFANYSPINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIC EEATS, LLC D/B/A BYG OLLY'S BAR & GRILL; SIZE MORE HOLDINGS, LLC; BYG SPRING FIELD, LLC; BYG ANDERSON, LLC; BYG UNION PROMENADE, LLC; BYG COVINGTON, LLC; AND LANCE SIZE MORE, Case No. 1:26-cv-00660-JPH (S.D. Ohio, July 8, 2026) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief pursuant to the Kentucky Wage and Hours Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Putative Plaintiffs are all non-exempt hourly Tip Credit Employees employed by the Defendants at anytime within three years preceding the commencement of this action who were paid a sub minimum wage and were subject to Defendants' policies and who are similarly situated to the Named Plaintiffs. Epic Eats is a dynamic innovation consultancy that partners with companies across the food industry to address their unique innovation needs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com EPSILON BUILDERS: Duarte Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- LUIS DUARTE, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals v. EPSILON BUILDERS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-24713 (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired as a "Project Manager," however, Plaintiff's primary duties consisted of performing non-exempt manual labor. The Defendant is a general contractor and third-party logistics company specializing in supply chain management, warehousing, specialized transportation, and material handling equipment installations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com ESTEE LAUDER: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Estee Lauder Companies data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Estee Lauder Companies data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Estee Lauder Companies Security Incident: What Happened? The Estee Lauder Companies, which operates dozens of skin care, makeup, fragrance, and hair care brands, has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. In a July 10, 2026 report submitted to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, Estee Lauder Companies disclosed that Social Security numbers, financial account codes, credit and debit account information, government ID numbers, and health records were involved. At the time this post was made, further information about the nature or scope of the Estee Lauder Companies data breach was unavailable. What You Can Do After the Estee Lauder Companies Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Estee Lauder Companies data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Estee Lauder Companies to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FIESTA INSURANCE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Fiesta Insurance data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Fiesta Insurance data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Fiesta Insurance Security Incident: What Happened? Fiesta Insurance Franchise Corporation, an insurance and tax preparation company with over 220 franchise locations nationwide, has reported a data breach involving sensitive information in its care. According to an online notice, Fiesta Insurance became aware on June 9, 2025 that certain systems within its network were impacted by a cybersecurity event. On June 26, 2026, an investigation aided by cybersecurity professionals determined that the files potentially accessed or acquired during the Fiesta Insurance Franchise Corporation data breach contained full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, passport numbers, financial account information, health-related financial information and driver’s license numbers. The degree of information potentially exposed during the Fiesta Insurance data breach may vary per individual. Although the total number of people affected by the Fiesta Insurance data breach is not yet known, 12,097 Texas residents are among those impacted. Fiesta Insurance began issuing notification letters on July 13, 2026. What You Can Do After the Fiesta Insurance Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Fiesta Insurance data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Fiesta Insurance to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Langford Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB LANGFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03847-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide services, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains PII of customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members. On November 17, 2025, FAC discovered that on or about November 13, 2025, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and extracted Plaintiff's and the stored Class Member's Private Information. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved. The Defendant reported to the Indiana Attorney General that it suffered a Data Breach that affected at least 439 Indiana residents, the suit says. First Advantage Corporation is a global provider of background screening, identity verification, and workforce risk management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com FIRST AMERICAN: Paredes Balks at Use of Property Owners' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERTO PAREDES, JOLIEN CONNOR, RANDALL SATTERFIELD, SUSAN MAYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-07015 (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy First American's unauthorized commercial use of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' names and identities in connection with First American's DataTree platform. The DataTree platform generates revenue by selling subscriptions, premium search capabilities, and reports concerning property owners. First American touts that "DataTree is built on the industry's largest database of property and homeowner information." First American offers prospective users a 7-day free trial access to the platform. During the free trial, First American displays the names and identities of real persons after users search for a property. According to the complaint, First American uses name and identity attributes as part of its subscription marketing strategy. By showing users the names and identifying information of real persons in property reports, First American increases the perceived value of the DataTree platform and encourages users to register, continue using the service, and purchase a subscription. First American operates a nationwide property-intelligence platform known as DataTree. Through DataTree, First American aggregates and sells information concerning real property and about the individuals who own property, or who have owned the property.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com Chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com FIRSTSOURCE HEALTHPLANS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Firstsource data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Firstsource data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Firstsource Security Incident: What Happened? Firstsource Healthplans and Healthcare Services, a global health insurance management and claims processing company, has reported a potential data breach involving its document upload platform. According to a sample notice sent to affected individuals, as seen below, the data breach resulted from a programming error that potentially allowed for unauthorized access to certain personally identifiable information on the platform, which supports online uploads of documents such as claims and correspondence on behalf of members and providers. The notice additionally indicates that the Firstsource data breach may have exposed Social Security numbers, and that the company may have received affected individuals' information through their health benefit plans. A report submitted on July 13, 2026 to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation reiterates that the breach impacted Social Security numbers. It is currently unknown how many individuals were impacted by the Firstsource data breach in total. What You Can Do After the Firstsource Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Firstsource data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Firstsource to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Certification Bid in Gardner Due August 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA GARDNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Case No. 2:20-cv-12061-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Drain entered an order granting the stipulation to amend the scheduling deadlines as follows: Class certification motion due: Aug. 24, 2026 Class members discovery deadline: Aug. 31, 2026 Opposition to class certification due: Sept. 15, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert reports: Sept. 30, 2026 Reply to class certification due: Oct. 2, 2026 The Defendant's expert reports: Oct. 30, 2026 All other deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order shall remain unchanged. Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vE8aMg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 11 W Fort St Suite 705, Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 483-0880 The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Demko, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Fitzgerald, writing for Car and Driver, reports that a California man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ford, alleging the automaker owes him a refund for passing tariff-related costs on to him. The suit, filed in Michigan federal court last week, claims that Ford passed extra costs onto customers through higher base prices and elevated destination charges. The suit hinges on a decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down Trump's broad tariff policy created under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One Ford Mustang Mach-E customer is hoping for a bit of a refund from the Blue Oval. A California man filed a class-action lawsuit against Ford last week over claims that the automaker charged him extra money for his Mustang Mach-E due to the Trump's administration's automotive tariffs. The plaintiff alleges that Ford owes customers a refund, now that the federal government has agreed to repay previously paid import duties. The suit, filed July 9, specifically calls out Ford for passing its extra costs from the new tariffs onto customers through higher destination charges and increased pricing on vehicles built in Mexico. While those costs came at a time when Ford was indeed paying more to import the Mach-E from Mexico, the U.S. Supreme Court has since struck down the sweeping tariffs. The federal government agreed to refund any duties paid by companies that have since been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court's decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the authority to blindly tax imports. In Ford's case, that refund should total around $1.3 billion, the company announced earlier this year. Jason Bullock, the San Diego man named as the plaintiff in the suit, believes that a portion of that $1.3 billion belongs to the customers who bore the brunt of those tariffs. "If Ford retains the [tariff refunds] while also retaining the tariff-related price increases paid by consumers, Ford will receive a double recovery and unjust windfall," the lawsuit reads. The suit is not unique to the Dearborn automaker. According to a report by Road & Track, Nike, Amazon, and Costco are all facing similar lawsuits from customers. Whichever suit makes its way through the legal system first could serve as precedent for the others, lending a sense of seriousness to the Ford situation. [GN] FRESNO, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 26, 2028 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEWIS DEWANE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF FRESNO, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00216-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial Disclosures: Aug. 6, 2026 Certification Non-Expert Discovery: June 4, 2027 Certification Expert Disclosure: July 30, 2027 Certification Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Aug. 27, 2027 Certification Expert Discovery: Oct. 15, 2027 Certification Motion Filing: Jan. 26, 2028 Fresno is the fifth-largest city in California, located in the agricultural heart of the San Joaquin Valley. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pLCLzT at no extra charge.[CC] GEMINI TRUST: Abramow Suit Removed to D.N.J. -------------------------------------------- The class action styled as STEVEN ABRAMOW, Plaintiff v. GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC, TYLER WINKLEVOSS and CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, Defendants, Case No. BER-L-006037-26, was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court for Bergen County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-08635-MCA-LDW to the proceeding. This case arises from Abramow's voluntary participation in a commercial lending program called Gemini Earn (the "Earn Program"). Through the Earn Program, participants ("Earn Lenders") availed themselves of Gemini's platform to loan cryptocurrency assets to a third-party commercial borrower called Genesis Global Capital, LLC. In return, Genesis (not Gemini) was to make regular interest payments to Earn Lenders for as long as it retained possession of their cryptocurrency assets. On November 16, 2022, Genesis defaulted on its obligations under the Earn Program, refusing to redeem and freezing all Earn Lenders' cryptocurrency assets. On January 19, 2023, Genesis filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. Secs. 101 et seq., with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In his complaint, Abramow seeks to vacate an arbitration award to the extent that it (i) dismissed his New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims, and (ii) dismissed claims pursuant to the Bankruptcy Decision and Bankruptcy Order. Gemini Trust Company, LLC operates as a limited purpose trust company regulated by the New York State Department of Financial Services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rubin M. Sinins, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. 505 Morris Ave. Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-4200 E-mail: (973) 379-4200 - and - John F. Baughman, Esq. BAUGHMAN KROUP BOSSE PLLC One Liberty Plaza - 46th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 548-3212 GENIUS GROUP: Federson Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood, a national plaintiffs' litigation firm representing shareholders and investors in complex securities matters, announces that it has commenced an investigation into potential securities law violations involving trading in the securities of Genius Group Limited ("Genius" or the "Company") (NYSE American: GNS) on behalf of purchasers and sellers of the Company's securities between April 12, 2022 and May 30, 2025. Details of the Lawsuit Investigation: Federman & Sherwood's investigation focuses on whether investors in Genius Group securities were harmed by alleged market manipulation and whether those responsible violated the federal securities laws. According to publicly filed allegations, the investigation concerns claims that certain market participants engaged in a manipulative trading practice commonly referred to as "spoofing." The allegations assert that defendants allegedly placed thousands of large buy or sell orders without any genuine intent to execute those trades, only to cancel the orders before execution. It is alleged that these orders were intended to create a false impression of market supply and demand, influence the market price of Genius securities, and benefit the defendants' trading positions. The allegations further claim that this conduct artificially widened bid-ask spreads, increasing transaction costs for investors. Federman & Sherwood is investigating whether investors suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged trading activity and whether all material information relating to the trading of Genius securities was properly disclosed. The firm is evaluating potential legal claims and all available remedies on behalf of affected investors. Background: Genius Group Limited is an entrepreneur education and edtech company offering education and business development programs worldwide. The Company's securities trade on the NYSE American exchange under the ticker symbol GNS. Recent litigation has alleged that manipulative trading practices affected the market for Genius securities during the relevant period, raising questions regarding the integrity of the market and the impact on investors. What This Means for Investors: Investors who purchased or sold Genius Group Limited securities during the relevant period and believe they suffered financial losses may contact Federman & Sherwood for a free and confidential consultation. The firm is evaluating potential legal claims and all available remedies on behalf of affected shareholders. Contact Information: Federman & Sherwood Phone: (405) 235-1560 (800) 237-1277 Email: info@federmanlaw.com Website: www.federmanlaw.com [GN] GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Gildan Activewear Inc. (NYSE: GIL) resulting from allegations that Gildan Activewear may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Gildan Activewear securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/gildan-activewear-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 16, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled "Gildan Activewear stock falls after short seller report." The article stated that Gildan Activewear shares fell "following the release of a short report from Jehoshaphat Research questioning the company's organic growth and sales practices." Further, the article stated that the "research firm disclosed a short position in the Canadian apparel manufacturer, claiming that the company's organic growth has been negative for years despite appearing to show revenue growth. Jehoshaphat Research stated that this underlying decline has been obscured by financial engineering." On this news, Gildan Activewear's NYSE-listed shares fell 18.7% on June 16, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GLOBAL PLASMA: Court Decertifies Class in Fislock ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH FISHLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00522-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Bibas entered a judgment granting the motion to decertify. Rule 23 requires the Court to certify only those classes that can actually be tried. Because Fishlock cannot reliably identify the members of this class, and has essentially conceded as much, continued certification is no longer appropriate. This class action alleges that Global Plasma Solutions fraudulently marketed air purifiers as cures for COVID-19. In September 2025, the Court certified a class of consumers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Global Plasma sells air purifiers that use ionization technology. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lc9sFw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, , Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: mfarnan@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK LLP, www.reichandbinstock.com 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Wyatt Poff, Esq. Samantha G. Wilson, Esq. YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP Rodney Square, 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 Facsimile: (302) 571-125 E-mail: swilson@ycst.com GLUCOBIT INC: Marshall Sues Over Unsecured Clients' Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLUCOBIT INC. D/B/A REFRAME, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03708-AT (N.D. Ga., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about May 1, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Glucobit Inc., doing business as Reframe, is a software developer based in Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GOOD DOG: Class Cert Hearing in Rounds Suit Set for August 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ada Rounds and Shayla Brooks on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Good Dog Bad Dog Management, LLC doing business as Atlanta Candyland, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01250-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray II entered an order setting a hearing on the pending Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Extension of Time in this case for Monday, August 31, 2026. Each side shall submit prior to the start of the hearing, a proposed order which includes findings of fact and conclusions of law for each motion being heard. Orders should be submitted by email to: sherri lundy@gand.uscourts.gov. Candyland is an adult entertainment club. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uRGhbR at no extra charge.[CC] GOOD HEALTH: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA, AWA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS BECHTOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GOOD HEALTH GROUP, LLC d/b/a MY DR NOW, Case No. 2:26-cv-04744-SMM (D. Ariz., July 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to pay front-desk, receptionist, patient-service, and clinic-support employees for all compensable work time, including off-the-clock work performed before scheduled shifts and before employees are permitted or able to clock in. The Defendant also fails to calculate overtime compensation using the correct regular rate of pay because Defendant excludes nondiscretionary remuneration, including "Perfect At" / Perfect Attendance and "Scheduling" payments, from the regular rate used to calculate overtime premiums. The Plaintiff brings the FLSA claim as a collective action on behalf of the following FLSA Collective: All hourly-paid, non-exempt front-desk, receptionist, patient-service, and clinic-support employees employed by The Good Health Group, LLC at MY DRNOW locations in the United States at any time during the three years preceding the commencement of this action through the date of judgment. The Plaintiff brings the Arizona wage claim as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following Arizona Class: All hourly-paid, non-exempt front-desk, receptionist, patient-service, and clinic-support employees employed by The Good Health Group, LLC at MY DR NOW locations in Arizona at any time during the one year preceding the commencement of this action through the date of judgment. The Defendant employs front-desk, receptionist, patient-service, and clinic support employees at MY DR NOW clinics and pays those employees through common payroll and timekeeping systems. THE GOOD HEALTH GROUP, LLC operates primarily under the brand name MY DR NOW, a healthcare provider and walk-in clinic network based in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Sands, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Illegal Face Detention Feature ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOLITA MORGAN and KEVIN LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-06993 (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2026) concerns Google's installation of powerful AI technology in its Nest cameras which it uses to scan, analyze, and save the faces and appearance of every person who walks by the cameras, all without seeking consent from the millions of people whose biometric data it is harvesting every day. According to the complaint, Google has coined its face detention feature "Familiar Face Detection." It deploys artificial intelligence to scan every person within the camera's view, capture an image of their face, generate a mathematical map of the person's facial geometry (a faceprint), compare that faceprint against the camera's stored collection of face profiles (a familiar face library), and store that data in the camera's library. From there, the Nest owner can label and save any photos in the "familiar faces library," where subsequent photos that Google determines are of the same person (based on the faceprint or other data, such as clothing) will also be collected and saved. Google's intrusion goes beyond scanning faces. When a face is obstructed, the Nest AI program can use additional signals like body size and clothing1 to recognize the person it has scanned. Over time, as with most AI technology, these scans get increasingly sophisticated and accurate as the camera is fed more data from unaware passersby. All of this is done unbeknownst to the people who are being scanned, saved, and profiled. Google gives no control to the person whose identity is at issue. Anyone walking by the camera will be scanned, analyzed, and stored, at least temporarily. The camera provides no warning, no visible indicator, no way to know that their facial geometry has been captured, analyzed, and catalogued. Even more fundamentally: the people captured by this technology have no chance to refuse to provide Google with their facial data, the suit says. Google designs, makes, markets, sells, and operates Nest security cameras and doorbells, including the Familiar Face feature, and it processes and manages the data those devices collect through systems it designs, operates, and controls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Abbye Ognibene, Esq. Kyle Quackenbush, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com abbyeo@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com GPGI INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities' Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that The Portnoy Law Firm advises GPGI, Inc., ("GPGI" or the "Company") (NYSE: GPGI) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between November 3, 2025 - May 6, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). GPGI investors have until September 15, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/gpgi-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for PURSUING claims to recover their losses. On March 12, 2026, GPGI announced 4Q25 and FY25 earnings and disclosed that its Husky Technologies reporting segment had $520.8 million in 4Q25 net sales (up 6.1% year-over-year) and $1.5687 billion in FY25 net sales (up 5% year-over-year). GPGI further disclosed that Husky had Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA of $136.1 million in 4Q25 (down 5.4% year-over-year) and $373.4 million in FY25 (down 3% year-over-year). Notably, Husky's Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA margins for 4Q25 compressed by 318 basis points from 29.3% to 26.1%. On this news, GPGI's stock price fell $3.23 per share, or 16.36%, over two trading sessions, to close at $16.51 per share on March 13, 2026. Then, on May 7, 2026, GPGI reported its 1Q26 financial results, revealing that Husky's Pro Forma Adjusted Net Sales were just $290.8 million, down 5.2% year-over-year, and its Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA fell to $38 million, down 40.2% year-over year. Additionally, GPGI cut 2026 guidance, with its Pro Forma Adjusted Net Sales lowered from an initial range of $2.183 billion to $2.228 billion to a range of $1.95 billion to $2.10 billion, and its Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA lowered from an initial range of $620 million to $650 million to a range of $550 million to $610 million. On this news, GPGI's stock price fell $4.52 per share, or 25.89%, to close at $12.94 per share on May 7, 2026. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. The Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: Appeals Court Order in O.R. Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- GREENVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled O.R., by and through his parents, Cheryl Rogers and Greg Rogers, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greenville County Library System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02599-DCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the First Amendment's and the Fourteenth Amendment's Anti-Trans-Character Collection Policy and Widespread Custom and Practices. On June 27, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 19, 2026. On Apr. 16, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Mar. 19 Order, which Judge Coggins denied as moot on May 28, 2026. The appellate case is styled as O.R. v. Greenville County Library System, Case No. 26-1844, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees O.R., by and through his parents, Cheryl Rogers and Greg Rogers, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua A. Block, Esq. Shana Adele Knizhnik, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2593 - and - David Allen Chaney, Jr., Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION P.O. Box 1668 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (864) 372-6681 Defendants-Appellants GREENVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM, et al. are represented by: Miles Edward Coleman, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 2 West Washington Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 373-2352 - and - James Nathan Ozmint, Esq. John Patrick Riordan, Esq. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., Esq. WILLSON JONES CARTER & BAXLEY, PA 325 Rocky Slope Road Greenville, SC 29607 Telephone: (864) 213-4146 (864) 672-3721 (864) 672-3711 GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Engages in Rental Unit Price Scheme, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH JAHANBAKHSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, REALPAGE, INC., and YARDI SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. _______ (Pa. Comm. Pl., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Philadelphia Code Sec. 9-813(1). According to the complaint, Greystar used, subscribed to, contracted for, and paid for RealPage's and Yardi's services, services that involve price coordination, to set, recommend, or influence the rents and occupancy levels for residential rental units in Philadelphia, including the Plaintiff's and Class members' units, in violation of Philadelphia Code Section 9-813(1)(d). As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to (1) injunctive and other equitable relief; (2) three times the value of actual damages sustained or, at their election before judgment, statutory damages of $2,000 per violation; (3) interest on actual damages; and (4) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, suit says. Greystar Management Services, LLC is a company that offers rental of apartment and residential units in the U.S., with its principal place of business in Charleston, South Carolina. RealPage, Inc. is an enterprise resource planning software company, headquartered in Richardson, Texas. Yardi Systems, LLC is a real estate software company, headquartered in Santa Barbara, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: ykopel@bursor.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 21 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order setting briefing schedule as follows: 1. The parties shall have through July 10, 2026, to file supplemental materials related to the disclosures of the class declarants; 2. The parties shall have through Oct. 2, 2026, to conduct discovery; 3. The Plaintiff shall have through Oct. 21, 2026, to file a motion for class certification; 4. The Defendant shall have through Nov. 4, 2026, to file an opposition to the motion; 5. The Plaintiff shall have through Nov. 12, 2026, to file an optional reply; 6. The hearing on the motion for class certification is continued to Dec. 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.; and 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant manufactures and fabricates glass products for diverse applications. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nh6adI at no extra charge.[CC] HARD EIGHT: Miran Must Show Cause for Failure to File Class Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sean Miran v. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00807-SSS-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sykes entered an order to show cause re Plaintiff's failure to file motion for class certification and order directing parties to meet and confer re new briefing schedule. As such, the Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than July 22, 2026, at 12:00 p.m., why this action, or the class allegations therein, should not be dismissed, or why other sanctions should not be imposed, for failure to comply with the Court's Order directing Plaintiff to file its Motion for Class Certification by June 17, 2026. The Court sets a hearing for this matter for July 31, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer regarding a new proposed class certification briefing schedule. The parties are directed to file, no later than July 22, 2026, at 12:00 p.m., a joint stipulation setting forth agreed-upon dates for the filing of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and a hearing date or, if the parties are unable to agree, a joint statement setting forth their respective positions. The Plaintiff's response to this Order to Show Cause and the joint stipulation may be filed as one document. If the Plaintiff files a timely response showing good cause for the delay, and the parties submit an agreed-upon proposed schedule, the Court will discharge this Order to Show Cause without further hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Defendant is a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PostRH at no extra charge.[CC] HAVEN TECHNOLOGIES: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAVEN TECHNOLOGIES INC Case No. 1:26-cv-05896 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.isotunes.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 the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Link 2.0 Earmuffs from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website by being unable to purchase Link 2.0 Earmuffs, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: portable electronics, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, says the suit. The Defendant operates the ISOtunes online interactive website which offers portable electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 HAZA FOODS: Class Certification Filing Extended to August 24 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAZA FOODS, LLC; HAZA FOODS OF NORTHEAST, LLC; HAZA FOODS OF MINNESOTA LLC and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 6:24-cv-06180-EAW-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mark W. Pedersen entered an order extendeding the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for Class Certification, and the subsequent briefing schedule are extended by 45 days to up to and including Aug. 24, 2026. HAZA is the largest Wendy's franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjJQei at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Healthcare Services Group (HCSG) has agreed to a $3,000,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the dining and housekeeping provider for long-term care facilities failed to protect confidential information in its care prior to a September 2024 data breach. The $3 million Healthcare Services Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 3, 2026. The agreement covers all living United States residents who were sent a notice from HCSG regarding potential impact from the data breach or were otherwise determined to have had their private information potentially impacted by the incident. The court-approved website for the Healthcare Services Group settlement can be found at HealthcareServicesGroupSettlement.com. Healthcare Services Group settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses incurred due to the data breach. This benefit covers unreimbursed losses from identity theft or fraud and costs for credit monitoring services, bank fees, long-distance phone charges, postage, mileage, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payout. In addition to a documented-loss payment, class members can submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member's payout will depend on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. Finally, all class members can file a claim form to enroll in three years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes dark web monitoring, identity theft insurance and access to identity recovery services. To submit a Healthcare Services Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All HCSG settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than October 1, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the HCSG settlement final approval following a hearing on September 24, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Healthcare Services Group class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which provides housekeeping, laundry and dining services for long-term care facilities and hospitals, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect its employees' private information, allegedly leading to a data breach on or around September 27, 2024. Per court documents, sensitive information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state ID numbers, financial account details, full access credentials, and medical and health insurance information. [GN] HENRY FORD: Underpays Healthcare Employees, Mansee-Persson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA MANSEE-PERSSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-12243-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly healthcare employee from approximately October 1, 2024, to the present. Henry Ford Health System is a healthcare services provider based in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com HESS BAKKEN: Penman Seeks Class Cert Bid Oral Argument ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD PENMAN AND ADELANTE OIL & GAS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated royalty owners, v. HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for oral argument and allotting the Plaintiffs and the Defendant a total of 45 minutes, split evenly between the parties, to present their respective positions on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Oral argument will sharpen, not duplicate, the written briefing. It gives the Court the opportunity to focus counsel on the specific questions that matter most to its analysis, to resolve ambiguities that inevitably remain after paper submissions, and to probe how the class mechanism proposed here would operate in practice, the Plaintiffs say. The Defendant is an oil and gas producer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Log3Zs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. George A. Barton, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110 Mission, KS 66205 Telephone: (913) 563-6253 E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com george@bartonburrows.com -and- - and - Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. Taylor P. Foye, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: jkronawitter@hab-law.com tfoye@hab-law.com HOLOGIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Cameron Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAN CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLOGIC, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-13147 (D. Mass., July 8, 2026) arises out of a recent data security incident and data breach perpetrated against Hologic, which held in its possession sensitive personally identifiable information, protected health information, and other private information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees, contractors, customers, healthcare professionals, patients, vendors, business partners, and/or individuals whose information was entrusted to Defendant or maintained within Defendant's systems and networks. Plaintiff Cameron was employed by the Defendant from approximately 2021 through 2025. As a condition of employment, payroll, benefits administration, tax reporting, personnel administration, onboarding, compliance, and other employment-related functions, Plaintiff provided Defendant with sensitive, personal, and private information. Despite its collection and maintenance of sensitive personal information, Hologic was recently identified in public threat-intelligence reporting as the victim of a ransomware-related data breach. On June 29, 2026, DeXpose reported that the ransomware group Redact claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Hologic on or about June 28, 2026, identified the target as hologic.com, and reported that Redact threatened to release sensitive data unless its demands were met. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to improve its data security systems, submit to future audits, provide adequate credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, and implement appropriate measures to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Hologic is a global medical technology company headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (737) 313-8560 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue, Suite 13400 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 506-5470 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Darrius D. Dixon, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com ddixon@stranchlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Hite-Reid Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LESIA HITE-REID, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01084 (D. Conn., July 8, 2026) contends that Home Depot implemented an illegal policy requiring its hourly, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, to undergo mandatory security screenings each shift without pay. According to the complaint, the mandatory screenings constitute compensable time worked by Plaintiff and the Class Members and by failing to pay them for such time worked, Home Depot violated Connecticut law by failing to pay for all "hours worked." Home Depot's conduct violates Connecticut law because Home Depot failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours in a week, as required by Connecticut law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs due to Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Hartford, Connecticut. She worked for Home Depot as an hourly, non-exempt employee for Home Depot in Bloomfield, Connecticut. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation which sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Brewer, Esq. 9 Steele Boulevard, Suite 3 Berlin, CT 06037 Telephone: (860) 217-0652 E-mail: jbreweratty@gmail.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com INTUIT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due September 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerts investors in Intuit Inc. (NASDAQ: INTU) of a pending securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between August 22, 2025 and May 20, 2026. Find out if you may qualify to recover losses or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com | (212) 363-7500. INTU shares fell $76.86 per share, a 20.02% single-day decline, closing at $307.07 on May 21, 2026. The Court has set September 8, 2026 as the deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment. The Named Individual Defendants The securities action names two senior officers as individual defendants. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Sasan K. Goodarzi and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Sandeep S. Aujla each served in their roles at all relevant times during the Class Period. The pleading asserts that both officers possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Intuit's SEC filings, press releases, and market communications. Section 20(a) Control Person Framework and SOX Certifications Each quarterly and annual report filed during the Class Period was accompanied by certifications signed under Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. As averred in the complaint, both officers certified that the filings did not contain untrue statements of material fact or omit facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint asserts that Goodarzi and Aujla, by virtue of their senior positions, controlled Intuit's public communications during the Class Period and had the ability and opportunity to prevent the issuance of allegedly misleading statements or to cause them to be corrected. Alleged Control Person Liability -- Both officers were allegedly provided copies of SEC filings and press releases prior to or shortly after issuance and had the opportunity to prevent or correct them -- Goodarzi allegedly sold 55,756 shares during the Class Period, enriching himself by over $36 million -- Aujla allegedly sold 8,782 shares during the Class Period, enriching himself by over $5 million -- Combined insider proceeds allegedly exceeded $41 million during the period of alleged misstatements -- Both officers allegedly reaffirmed FY 2026 TurboTax growth guidance in multiple filings even as the segment allegedly weakened "Corporate officers have a duty to ensure their companies' public statements are accurate and complete, and the certifications signed under Sarbanes-Oxley reflect that personal responsibility." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Submit your information at https://zlk.com/cases/intuit-inc-class-action-lawsuit-intu?prid=193866&wire=2 or call (212) 363-7500. ABOUT THE FIRM -- For over two decades, Levi & Korsinsky has represented shareholders in securities class actions. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years. Investors who suffered losses have until September 8, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Frequently Asked Questions About the INTU Lawsuit Q: Who are the defendants named in the INTU lawsuit? A: The complaint names Intuit Inc. and individual defendants including senior executives who signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley. Q: What is the INTU class action lawsuit about? A: A securities class action has been filed against Intuit Inc. (NASDAQ: INTU) alleging materially false and misleading statements between August 22, 2025 and May 20, 2026. Shares fell approximately 20.02% after the Company disclosed a 17% workforce reduction and TurboTax revenue that missed expectations. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation. Q: What is the INTU lead plaintiff deadline? A: The deadline to apply for lead plaintiff appointment is September 8, 2026. This deadline applies only to investors seeking to serve as lead plaintiff. Class members who do not apply may still participate in any recovery without taking action before this date. Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run. Q: What documents do I need to submit my information? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Q: What if I already sold my INTU shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate. Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval. Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion. Contacts Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com[GN] INTUIT INC: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Intuit Inc. ("Intuit" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTU) securities between August 22, 2025 and May 20, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) they had overstated Intuit's competitive advantages and growth, as well as the overall strength and sustainability of its business model and operations; (ii) in reality, Intuit was losing significant business in its tax-related business, particularly in its Turbo Tax business, as a result of, inter alia, increasing competitive and pricing pressures; (iii) accordingly, Intuit's previously issued FY 2026 TurboTax revenue growth guidance was unreliable and/or unrealistic; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Intuit should contact the Firm prior to the September 8, 2026 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] INVITAE CORP: Discloses Private Genetic Info Without Consent ------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Invitae Corporation faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the genetic testing company illegally disclosed the private genetic information of tens of thousands of people without written consent amid the company's bankruptcy-sparked acquisition by Labcorp. The 12-page privacy lawsuit asserts that Invitae, a once-leading genetic testing company that collected and maintained extensive amounts of patient data, unlawfully disclosed protected genetic information to Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings after Invitae filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 13, 2024. After Invitae filed for bankruptcy, the filing says, the company announced in April of that year that it would be acquired by Labcorp for $239 million. By August 5, 2024, Labcorp reported that the acquisition was complete, per the complaint. Following its acquisition of Invitae, Labcorp reported that it was integrating genetic test results from Invitae's patients for use in clinical trials and treatment development, the lawsuit says. The case charges that Invitae did not acquire patients' written consent before transmitting their genetic information to Labcorp, in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. The class action lawsuit says that the minor plaintiff and his mother provided his genetic testing samples to Invitae to sequence and share with his clinical team, with the reasonable belief that his highly sensitive and "immutable" genetic data would be kept confidential, private and secure. Moreover, they believed that the only people with access to the minor's information would be himself, his mother, and his medical treatment team—not third parties like Labcorp, the filing says. Had the plaintiff and his mother been aware that sensitive genetic information would be transmitted to a third party without consent, they would not have agreed to provide genetic samples to Invitae, the case states. The Invitae class action lawsuit looks to cover all Illinois residents whose genetic information was disclosed and/or released by Invitae to Labcorp, according to Invitae's records. [GN] JANTEX BUILDING: Lopez Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. JANTEX BUILDING CARE, LLC, and BLANCA CARVAJAL, Case No. 4:26-cv-00831-O (N.D. Tex., July 8, 2026) contends that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time-and-one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per week under Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was solely paid their regular straight hourly rate for some hours worked over 40 in a week. As a non-exempt employee, Plaintiff should have been entitled to the benefits of the FLSA. Rather, the Plaintiff was paid their straight hourly rate for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff and the putative Collective Action Members are Defendants' current and former employees who were paid straight hourly pay for overtime hours worked, rather than at the applicable overtime premium rate. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until approximately January 2025. While employed in this capacity, Plaintiff was employed as a "supervisor." Jantex is a cleaning company that employs individuals paid on an hourly rate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. Forester Haynie PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 fax E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com mcarley@foresterhaynie.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07374 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order referring motion to Certify Class filed by Dianne Buehler to Magistrate Judge Clay H. Kaminsky. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. JetBlue is an American low-cost airline.[CC] JOHN RIFE: Seeks Extension to Respond on Soumare Bid to Stay ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OUSMANE SOUMARE, et al., v. JOHN E. RIFE, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-04332-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to respond to two Motions as follows: 1. The Defendants shall respond to the Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym on or before July 13, 2026; 2. The Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to stay effective date of agency action or preserve status or rights on or before July 27, 2026. 2. If necessary, the Court will set a deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification after the Court resolves the Defendants' expected motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) challenging the purported recission of a purported "Changed Circumstances Policy" by ICE's Philadelphia Field Office, which, according to the Plaintiffs, started over a year ago, in mid-2025, and which "required officers to justify re-arrest and re-detention by first making an individualized determination of a material change in circumstances such that a person now poses a danger to the community or would be a flight risk." The Plaintiffs also purport to represent a class of: "(1) all noncitizens subject to re-arrest or re-detention by the Philadelphia ICE Field Office, (2) who have been or will be released from DHS custody; (3) are in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. section 1229a; and (4) are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c)." A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ss163z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David Metcalf, Esq. Susan R. Becker, Esq. Gregory B. David, Esq. Mark J. Sherer, Esq. Mark C. Priebe, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 861-8445/8412 E-mail: mark.sherer@usdoj.gov mark.priebe@usdoj.gov JOSEPH BIDEN: Haitian Bridge Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE et al., v. BIDEN et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03317-JMC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to extend the time to file their motion for class certification by 21 days. The Plaintiffs request that the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be modified as follows: The Plaintiffs file a motion for class certification by Aug. 3, 2026; The Defendants file their opposition to the motion for class certification by Sept. 16, 2026, and The Plaintiffs file their reply in support of the motion by Oct. 2, 2026. There is good cause to grant the extension in this matter. The Plaintiffs' counsel intend to incorporate material from the Defendants' answer into their motion for class certification as appropriate, but the Defendants' answer will not be filed until July 27, 2026, on account of the recent extension. In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel have been diligently preparing the motion for class certification and more time is needed for undersigned counsel to confer with class representatives who are in dangerous conditions in Haiti with limited cell reception and internet access and with additional experts who have limited availability. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x1r0mo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erik Crew, Esq. HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE 4265 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 280 San Diego, CA 92105 Telephone: (949) 603-5751 E-mail: ecrew@haitianbridge.org - and - Stanley Young, Esq. Alexander L. Schultz, Esq. Maura A. Sokol, Esq. Aurora Jaques, Esq. Meg Pritchard, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4704 E-mail: syoung@cov.com aschultz@cov.com msokol@cov.com ajaques@cov.com mpritchard@cov.com - and - Rachel Landry, Esq. Stephen Manning, Esq. Rosa Saavedra Vanacore, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue #200 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 922-3042 Facsimile: (503) 882-0281 E-mail: rachel@innovationlawlab.org stephen@innovationlawlab.org rosa@innovationlawlab.org - and - Karen C. Tumlin, Esq. Esther H. Sung, Esq. Vanessa Rivas-Bernardy, Esq. Hillary Li, Esq. Emily Satifka, Esq. Laura Flores-Perilla, Esq. Brandon Galli-Graves, Esq. JUSTICE ACTION CENTER Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 316-0944 Facsimile: (323) 450-7276 E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org vanessa.rivasbernardy@justiceactioncenter.org hillary.li@justiceactioncenter.org emily.satifka@justiceactioncenter.org laura.flores-perilla@justiceactioncenter.org brandon.galli-graves@justiceactioncenter.org JUST CANDY: Wilson Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JUST CANDY LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-07993 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.justcandy.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JUSTFAB LLC: Faces Santana Class Action Suit Over Tariff Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------- GRICELDA SANTANA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JUSTFAB, LLC and TFG HOLDING, INC. d/b/a JustFab, Case No. 2:26-cv-07429 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, seeking restitution and disgorgement of all tariff surcharges she paid to JustFab, prejudgment interest, and other equitable and monetary relief. According to the complaint, tariff surcharge is a discrete, line-item identified on each customer's bill. It would therefore be trivial for Just Fab to refund the tariff surcharges to its customers. Yet JustFab has refused to make any legally binding commitment to do so in the wake of Learning Resources. Last year, the Donald Trump Administration imposed a sweeping set of tariffs pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Supreme Court recently held were unlawful. As the federal government has acknowledged and as the Court of International Trade has ordered, the government must now refund the billions of dollars it collected in connection with the IEEPA tariffs, plus interest. The problem is that importers overwhelmingly passed the cost of IEEPA tariffs on to consumers, but only the importer has standing to seek a refund in the Court of International Trade. Therefore, importers stand to gain an enormous windfall at consumers' expense, the suit says. Plaintiff Santana is a JustFab customer who paid tariff surcharges in connection with the IEEPA tariffs. JustFab responded to the IEEPA tariffs raising prices to pass the costs of the tariffs on to consumers, including through a tariff surcharge on purchases made through its website, the suit asserts. The Defendant is a retail apparel and fashion company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA mwilson@meyerwilson.com 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 - and - Jacob Polin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 344 20th Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 E-mail: jacob@levinlawpa.com JVCKENWOOD USA: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JVCKENWOOD USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05898 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.jvc.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase HA-EC75T Earbuds 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. He 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. The Plaintiff 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. Jvckenwood USA Corporation operates the website that offers portable electronics.[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 KENTUCKY HOME: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. KENTUCKY HOME FASHION, LLC, D/B/A MAGNUS HOME PRODUCTS, Case No. 1:26-cv-07998 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.magnushomeproducts.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com L'OREAL USA: Deceptively Markets Baby Products, Raymundo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA RAYMUNDO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-03951-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2026) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to enjoin L'Oreal's deceptive marketing of its Baby Products, and to recover compensation to address the price premium consumers paid as a result of it. The Plaintiff contends that through its packaging, labeling, and marketing, L'Oreal represents that the Baby Products are specially formulated for infant skin—that is, that they possess formulation characteristics distinguishing them from the corresponding Standard Products, but those representations are false and misleading. Accordingly, the "Baby" designation falsely conveys that the Baby Products possess characteristics or qualities that distinguish them from the Standard Products when, in fact, no such material distinctions exist. As a result of this false distinction, consumers pay a significant price premium for the Baby Products, the suit says. L'Oreal manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells CeraVe-branded skincare products, including two product lines marketed as suitable for use by infants and babies: CeraVe "Baby" Healing Ointment and CeraVe "Baby" Eczema Cream.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel E. Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Henson Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE HENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANDSTAR SYSTEM HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01793 (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide services, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members as a result of the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. The Defendant is a logistics company that offers various transportation services in the United States and globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 602 S. Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com LASERSHIP INC: Bid to Modify Case Management Schedule Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Limas v. LaserShip, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-11046 (D. Mass., Filed April 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order denying Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Schedule: As stated at the June 24, 2026 status conference, the Court extends the deadline for the completion of all discovery to January 15, 2027. By July 16, 2026, the parties shall file a proposed schedule for the briefing of any motion for class certification and any dispositive motions following the completion of discovery." The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. LaserShip is a last-mile transportation and delivery company.[CC] LEGENDS HOSPITALITY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $812,900 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Legends Hospitality has agreed to an $812,900 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the venue management company failed to protect private information in its care from data breaches in November and December 2024 and January 2025. The $812,900 Legends Hospitality class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 1, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents who had information potentially impacted in the data breaches and/or were notified of the incidents by Legends Hospitality. Court documents state that 16,258 people were affected by the three Legends data breaches. The court-approved website for the Legends Hospitality class action settlement can be found at LegendsDataSettlement.com. Legends Hospitality settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between November 9, 2024 and August 19, 2026 due to the data breaches. This benefit covers losses from identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as invoices or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive an estimated $200 cash payment, with no proof required. The final amount of each class member’s cash payment may be increased or decreased, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. Finally, all class members can submit a claim form to enroll in three years of CyEx Financial Shield Total, which includes financial fraud insurance. To file a Legends Hospitality settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Legends Hospitality claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 19, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Legends Hospitality settlement final approval following a hearing on September 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Legends Hospitality class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which provides operational services for stadiums and entertainment venues, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect private information in its care, allegedly leading to three data breaches between November 2024 and January 2025. Per court documents, sensitive information that may have been compromised in the breaches included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, government ID numbers, financial information, medical information, and health insurance information. [GN] LENS.COM INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Martin Suit to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LENS.COM, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Rickey Martin, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lens.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60489, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is brought against the Defendant for advertising artificially low retail prices to lure consumers to buy on its website. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge David S. Leibowitz granted in part and denied in part on June 18, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is granted, while the motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is denied. The appellate case is styled as Rickey Martin v. Lens.com, Inc., Case No. 26-90019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on July 2, 2026. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner LENS.COM, INC. is represented by: Mark Bettilyon, Esq. Jed Hansen, Esq. Joseph Harmer, Esq. THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP 175 S. Main St., Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 566-6633 Email: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com hansen@tnw.com joseph.harmer@tnw.com - and - James W. Lee, Esq. Laselve E. Harrison, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 SE Second St., Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Email: jwlee@bsfllp.com lharrison@bsfllp.com LMB MORTGAGE: Faces Esparza Suit Over Alleged Unlawful Spamming --------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LMB MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a QUICKENLOANS.COM, Case No. 3:26-cv-03962-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2026) contends that Defendants and its affiliate marketing partners bombards Californians with spam disguised as "senior discounts." According to the complaint, LMB tricks recipients into mistakenly opening spam emails and clicking on embedded links that take them to QUICKENLOANS.COM, where the Defendant secretly installs tracking pixels on their devices to spy on them across the internet. The Plaintiff is the owner of the California e-mail address recruitforce1@gmail.com, which Plaintiff opened while in California and regularly accesses from California. The Defendant spams Plaintiff and other class members relentlessly. Indeed, in the past three years, the Plaintiff believes that he has received nearly a dozen unwanted spam e mails from the Defendant, the suit says. LMB is a Delaware corporation that markets loan products via alleged deceptive spam.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Filing Modified to Oct. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARRY MATTHEWS, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02944-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting a motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification as modified: Event Date Last date to hear motion for class Oct. 2, 2026 certification: Deadline to file motion for class Aug. 7, 2026 certification: Deadline to file opposition: Aug. 28, 2026 Deadline to file reply: Sept. 11, 2026 The parties should not expect a further continuance absent a specific showing, dating back to the filing of the Complaint, of all their efforts to timely complete discovery and other litigation activity. This detailed showing must demonstrate the work still to be performed reasonably could not have been accomplished within the applicable deadline(s). General statements are insufficient to establish good cause. The Plaintiffs' ex parte application is denied as moot. On June 25, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend deadline to file motion for class certification by 30 Days and other dates. The Plaintiffs request a continuance on grounds including the Plaintiffs' counsel's unexpected medical surgery and recovery period. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NtXmPQ at no extra charge.[CC] LOWE'S HOME: Lewis Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ELYSE O'CALLAGHAN LEWIS, on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated person v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 26-2-18805-0 SEA (Filed June 10, 2026), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-2468 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that Lowe's violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act by sending emails with "misleading subject lines" that "encourage consumers to view emails and make purchasing decisions with a false sense of urgency." Lowe's Home is an American home improvement retailer.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-2770 E-mail: brooksm@ballardspahr.com LUCILE SALTER: Bid for Provisional Class Cert. Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.A., et al., v. Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Case No. 5:26-cv-04998-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order that: -- The plaintiffs' motion to proceed via pseudonym is granted. -- The Plaintiffs' motions for provisional class certification and for a preliminary injunction are granted in part and denied in part. DOJ and Acting Attorney General Blanche, and all persons acting in concert with or on behalf of such defendants, are enjoined from requesting, receiving, producing, transmitting, disclosing, or otherwise obtaining any records, documents, or information that (1) identify members of the provisional class as having sought or received gender-affirming care (or "Sex-Rejecting Procedures"); (2) disclose the clinical indications, diagnoses, assessments, or other sensitive health information underlying the provision of such care to members of the provisional class; (3) describe the gender-affirming care (or "Sex-Rejecting Procedures") provided to members of the provisional class or any consultations or patient intakes related to such care; or (4) relate to the provision of informed consent and parent or guardian authorization for provisional class members' receipt of gender-affirming care (or "Sex-Rejecting Procedures"). Absent a further order from this Court, the injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of these proceedings. The Plaintiffs have raised serious questions, and potentially a likelihood of success, as to DOJ's argument that they lack an equitable cause of action and have established a likelihood of success on their informational-privacy claim, a likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest tip sharply in their favor. Preliminary injunctive relief is therefore appropriate as to the provisional Packard class. For the purpose of pursuing preliminary relief, plaintiffs ask the Court to provisionally certify the following class and subclass: Statewide Class: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at a healthcare institution located in the State of California, including Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford." Packard Subclass: "All individuals who received any medical treatment for gender dysphoria, including any medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, or clinical intervention that is intended or reasonably expected to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming a minor's asserted gender identity rather than the minor's birth sex, while they were under eighteen years of age, from Jan. 1, 2020, through May 5, 2026, at Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford." Lucile is a women's and children's hospital. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BgWZ1x at no extra charge.[CC] LUNCHBOX INC: Adds Junk Fees to Consumers' Carts, Goldstein Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LUNCHBOX, INC., d/b/a LUNCHBOX PACKS, Case No. 26STCV21499 (Cal. Super., July 8, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. According to the complaint, when consumers browse products on the Lunchbox website, Lunchbox advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement on their home page for free shipping if a customer spends $150. Those pricing representations are false, however, because Lunchbox surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Order Protection" fee, says the suit. Accordingly, the assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since: (a) Lunchbox sneaks these fees into consumers shopping carts; (b) the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering Lunchbox's promise for "free" shipping on purchases of $150 or more false; (c) the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and (d) the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendant's deception. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Lunchbox's deceptive tactics. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, Defendant deceives consumers and gain an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other major e-commerce sites do not assess such a fee, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of a refund of Order Protection fees paid by class members, among other remedies, and public injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide whether they will pay shipping costs. Lunchbox is a retailer specializing in accessories for music festival attendees and is headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com M3 NURSERIES: Renteria Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR M. RENTERIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. M3 NURSERIES, INC. DBA CERTIFIED PLANT GROWERS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 26STCV21563 (Cal. Super., July 9, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to pay all minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following class pursuant to section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure as follows: All individuals who are or were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the Class Period (the "Class Members"). Certified Plant is a family-owned business specializing in a selection of bedding plants, including annuals, and perennials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. Christian Valenzuela Cabral, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com cvc@melmedlaw.com MARKEL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Farris Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENICA FARRIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARKEL GROUP INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00638-DJN (E.D. VA., July 8, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information and protected health information suffered by Defendant, which it publicly reported on July 7, 2026. Between March 17-18, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data security incident where an unauthorized actor accessed certain systems on its network environment and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. At least the following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and medical information. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff and individuals impacted by the Data Breach directly or indirectly provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides and or as a condition of employment with Defendant, says the suit. The Defendant is a global specialty insurance company that provides customized insurance, reinsurance, and risk management solutions for businesses and individuals with complex or specialized insurance needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. FLOYD LAW, PC 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 529-0000 Facsimile: (804) 529-0009 E-mail: lee@floydpc.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com MATHWORKS INC: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Lowry Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC LOWRY, ANSH BAHRI, GABRIEL HA, and JENNIFER HENLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE MATHWORKS, INC., THE MATHWORKS 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN ADVISORY TEAM, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-13065-DLC (D. Mass., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) including breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries, and failure to furnish governing plan documents. The suit alleges that during the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the MathWorks 401(k) Retirement Plan, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance, and by failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. As a result of the Defendants' overall mismanagement of the Plan, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered losses, says the suit. The MathWorks, Inc. is a developer of mathematical computing software, with a principal place of business in Natick, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 691-8762 Email: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, PC 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com MATRIX BOTTLING: Garcia Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SANCHEZ GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATRIX BOTTLING GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 268TCV21531 (Cal. Super., July 8, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to pay all overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees for all hours actually worked, resulting in unpaid wages including (but not limited to) by requiring and/or permitting employees to work while off-the- clock, including during their off-duty meal periods. Specifically, Plaintiff was required to keep his personal cellular phone on him during meal periods in order to respond to communications from his manager. However, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were not compensated for this time due to Defendants' timekeeping policies/practices, which fail to pay for all hours actually worked. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in the position of "Production" (or similarly titled position) since approximately October 2023. The Plaintiff's primary job duties include wrapping palettes, cleaning his assigned department, and assisting with the unloading and loading of products onto shipping trucks. The Defendants operate a bottling and packaging facility in Montebello, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Liam A. Hall, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com lhall@haineslawgroup.com MAX NASTASEE: All Claims Against Schuylkill County Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARRY COLLINS, et al., v. MAX NASTASEE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02543-JPW-EW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered a judgment that will grant Schuylkill County's motion to dismiss, dismiss all claims against Schuylkill County, vacate the court's order appointing counsel for Plaintiff L.R., order clarification on the representative of L.R. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, grant K. Collins' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny K. Collins’ motion for appointment of counsel. The Plaintiffs did not oppose the pending motion. Therefore, the court will grant the pending motion and dismiss all claims asserted against Schuylkill County To clarify any confusion by the court's previous order appointing counsel for the representation of L.R. rather than the representation of L.R.'s guardian, the court will vacate it's prior appointment of counsel. The complaint alleges that the Defendants were involved in an unconstitutional search of the residence shared by the Plaintiffs following an alleged parole violation of R. Clark. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WoIDSk at no extra charge.[CC] MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $3-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Maximus Education, LLC d/b/a Aidvantage has agreed to a $3,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the student loan servicer called cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded voice without consent, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The $3 million Aidvantage class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 9, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States to whom Aidvantage placed or caused to be placed a call, directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular service but not assigned to a current or former Aidvantage customer or accountholder, in connection with which Aidvantage used or caused to be used an artificial or prerecorded voice, at any time from February 12, 2021 through September 26, 2025. Court documents state that Aidvantage contacted approximately 32,188 cell phone numbers that were not associated with an accountholder. The court-approved website for the Aidvantage class action settlement can be found at AidvantageTCPASettlement.com. Aidvantage settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment estimated to be between $500 and $1,000. The amount of each class member's cash payout may increase or decrease, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit an Aidvantage settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. All Aidvantage claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 24, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Aidvantage settlement final approval following a hearing on October 7, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Aidvantage class action lawsuit alleged that the federal student loan servicer sent prerecorded or artificial voice calls or messages to cell phone numbers that were not associated with its customers or accountholders without first obtaining express permission, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dries Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TRACEY DRIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCADIEN P.C., CPAS, and IRCO COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:26-cv-08382 (D.N.J., July 8, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, IRCO contracts with Mercadien for its services. In their ordinary courses of business operations, each Defendant collects, stores, and maintains sensitive Private Information. Mercadien, as an accounting firm, was responsible for implementing adequate security measures to safeguard the Private Information of its Clients' customers. IRCO, as a Client of Defendant Mercadien, was responsible for conducting reasonable due diligence before selecting Defendant Mercadien as a vendor and for establishing appropriate oversight mechanisms to ensure Defendant Mercadien was properly safeguarding IRCO's customer data. Both Defendants have a respective resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. In November 2025, Mercadien detected suspicious activity on its computer networks. Shortly thereafter, it was determined that Mercadien experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its computer network and accessed certain files within Mercadien's Box environment which included Mercadien's Clients' customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social Security/ITIN numbers, financial/bank account numbers, and other sensitive information were compromised in the Data Breach. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, alleges the suit. Mercadien is an accounting firm that offers professional financial services to businesses and financial institutions. IRCO is a financial institution that provides personal banking, business banking, and similar financial services to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New Dries, New Dries 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com MERIDIAN OF ILLINOIS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Meridian of Illinois data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Meridian of Illinois data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Meridian of Illinois Security Incident: What Happened? Meridian Health Plan of Illinois, a Centene Corporation subsidiary that provides government-sponsored health plans, has reported a data breach affecting 21,027 people. According to an online notice posted on June 17, 2026, Meridian of Illinois discovered an incident involving provider access to its online system on April 28, 2026. This incident may have allowed an unauthorized actor to view or download some member information. The information involved in the Meridian Health Plan of Illinois data breach, which may vary by individual, potentially includes names, Member ID numbers, dates of birth, contact information, and eligibility- or claims-related details. What You Can Do After the Meridian of Illinois Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Meridian of Illinois data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Meridian of Illinois to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] META PLATFORMS: Judge Likely to Advance Suit Over Hacked Accounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Attridge, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a proposed class of Facebook users who say Meta failed to protect their accounts from hackers and denied users access to their own accounts after they'd been compromised will likely be able to advance their claims against the tech giant, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, July 15. Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said in a tentative ruling from the bench that he was inclined to allow the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair competition to move forward as they had addressed his concerns with their prior complaint. "It seems to me that 'you can delete the individual content you share, post and upload at any time' is a promise to begin the process whenever the customer wants, and the deletion is to take place within 90 days," the Barack Obama appointee said. He continued: "It seems to me there is a breach of implied covenant theory: Meta is intentionally using the plaintiffs' information and has gotten rid of people who were there to protect the information; that seems like a plausible theory to me." Lead plaintiffs Sara Isgur, Eddie Edwards and Richard Repp sued Meta in 2024, claiming the company breached its terms of service by allowing hackers to take over users' Facebook accounts while denying users access to their own accounts. Orrick dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint in January for failure to state claims but allowed them leave to amend. At the hearing, the judge said he was inclined to find the plaintiffs had addressed his concerns with their prior complaint. "I think this ought to start maneuvering its way through the process," he said. In their most recent complaint, the plaintiffs say they allowed Meta to license their information in exchange for access to Facebook. However, they say Meta violated its terms of service by intentionally not restoring access to their hacked accounts or providing a way for them to rescind the company's license to their personal information to keep profiting from it. They additionally claim Meta intentionally fired customer service employees who typically assist users who have been locked out of their accounts, further increasing its profits. Melissa Zappala of Dunn Isaacson Rhee, representing Meta, argued the plaintiffs are using their licensing theory to attempt to hold the company responsible for being locked out of their Facebook accounts due to the hackers, despite Meta's terms of service stating that the company is not liable for hackers' conduct. Zappala additionally argued that while the platform's terms of service do state users can delete content at any time, the process does not work perfectly and the terms of service must be read as a whole. "Yes, there is a statement that a user can delete content, but there is no guarantee that a user can delete content at any time, which is precisely what plaintiffs are attempting to impose," she said. Additionally, Zappala said the terms of service do not give users the right to terminate Meta's license. Licenses can only be terminated, she said, when Meta deletes the content from the system, which is distinct from user deletion of content. "Even if a user were to initiate a deletion process, Meta may still need to retain that content and the license to that content," she said. "Because plaintiffs claim that users have the right to delete content and terminate Meta's license, and that is not a promise in the terms of service, the breach of contract claim should be dismissed." Zappala further argued that because the terms of service do not promise users can delete their content and terminate Meta's license, the implied covenant claim should also be dismissed. In rebuttal, plaintiffs' attorney Annick Persinger of Tycko & Zavareei argued the plaintiffs have a right to revoke the contract they have with Meta at any time. "We did our very best to read your order and follow your instructions," she told the judge. "We are very glad to hear that you have found our efforts sufficient, at least tentatively." Orrick said he would issue an order as soon as he could. Neither party responded to requests for comment by press time. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after its significant stock drop resulting from potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Microsoft, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/microsoft-class-action-lawsuit. Key Details of the Microsoft ($MSFT) Class Action: -- Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 11, 2026 -- Alleged Misconduct: Securities fraud alleging that Microsoft misled investors regarding its Azure cloud computing platform and AI chatbot Copilot -- Stock Drop: January 28, 2026 - 10% Stock Drop -- Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington -- Action: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Investors have until August 11, 2026 to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Microsoft common stock. The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. It is captioned City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System, et al., No. 26-cv-02071. Why is Microsoft Being Sued for Securities Fraud? Microsoft is a multinational technology company that develops software, cloud services, and devices. In recent years, Microsoft's cloud computing platform named Azure has been Microsoft's main growth driver. A key reason for Azure's recent growth is Microsoft's multi-billion-dollar investment into AI, including the development of its own generative AI chatbot named Copilot. According to the complaint, during the relevant period, Microsoft consistently touted Copilot's best-in-class capabilities, which purportedly drove widespread and growing user adoption. Copilot's apparent success allowed Microsoft to report surging Azure-related revenue. As alleged, in truth, Copilot suffered from severe functionality issues that caused user adoption to decline and put Microsoft's Azure revenue at risk. Why did Microsoft's Stock Drop? On January 28, 2026, Microsoft announced disappointing 2Q 2026 financial results and that Azure growth had slowed suddenly. Microsoft also allegedly revealed for the first time that the number of Microsoft 365 Copilot premium customers totaled only 15 million, materially below analyst estimates. This news caused the price of Microsoft common stock to decline $48.13 per share, or 10%, from $481.63 per share on January 28, 2026, to $433.50 per share on January 29, 2026. Additionally, on February 3, 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported in an article titled "Microsoft's Pivotal AI Product Is Running Into Big Problems" that severe challenges and functionality issues had plagued Copilot, causing the application to lose market share. Specifically, The Wall Street Journal reported that "[c]onfusing brand positioning and interoperability problems have frustrated users." Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/microsoft-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in Microsoft, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/microsoft-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Adam McCall, Esq. adam@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, "Litigation Stars" by Benchmark Litigation, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Most recently, The Legal 500 awarded BFA the most client satisfaction accolades of any plaintiff's securities litigation law firm, with clients noting: "[t]here is no better service provider in the practice area," "[t]he interest of the client is always front and center," and "[t]here isn't a better firm in this space." One testimonial described the firm as "nimble and entrepreneurial," with a "relentless focus on adding value for clients." Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/microsoft-class-action-lawsuit [GN] MISSISSIPPI: Fuselier Appeals Civil Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY FUSELIER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Johnny Fuselier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John S. RisCassi, in his official capacity as the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-268, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The suit is brought against the Defendant for civil rights violation. On May 1, 2026, Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered final judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. The civil case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Fuselier v. RisCassi, Case No. 26-60519, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHNNY FUSELIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aaron Randall Rice, Esq. AMERICAN DREAM LEGAL 1888 Main Street Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 879-5595 Defendant-Appellee John S. RisCassi, in his official capacity as the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, is represented by: James E. Graves, III, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 501 E. Court Street Jackson, MS 39201 MISSOURI: Appeals Amended Class Cert. Order in Darrington Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Debra Darrington, as next friend for M.R., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Missouri Department of Mental Health, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-MDH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit against all the Defendants alleges Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) has been systemically failing to provide Constitutionally timely evaluations and restoration services to pretrial detainees who are suspected of, or adjudicated to be, incompetent to stand trial. On Nov. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Dec. 31, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Mar. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On June 16, 2026, Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certified two classes, the Restoration Class and Evaluation Class. On June 22, 2026, the Court entered an amended Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The appellate case is styled as Debra Darrington, et al. v. Missouri Department of Mental Health, et al., Case No. 26-8009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next friend for M.R., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kevin Delaney Cowling, Esq. Joseph Brent Dulle, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 Saint Louis, MO 63105 - and - Eric A. Foley, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE 4400 S. Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 - and - Maureen Hanlon, Esq. Ebony Alexis McKeever, Esq. ARCH CITY DEFENDERS 5939 Goodfellow Boulevard Saint Louis, MO 63147 - and - Jason Orr, Esq. Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq. ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64111 - and - Jonathan D. Schmid, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI 906 Olive Street, Suite 1130 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Defendants-Petitioners MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al. are represented by: Catherine L. Hanaway, Esq. Louis J. Capozzi, III, Esq. Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: (573) 751-1800 - and - Caroline M. Brown, Esq. Rebecca L. Wolfe, Esq. BROWN & PEISCH PLLC 1220 19th Street NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 499-4258 MLD SOLUTIONS: Dominguez Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERTO CANDELARIO DOMINGUEZ and JOSE ENRIQUE MENDOZA JIMENEZ, v. MLD SOLUTIONS LLC, MLD GROUP LLC, MOSCARINO OUTDOOR CREATIONS, INC., and CHARLES MOSCARINO III, Case No. 1:26-cv-01582-JPC (N.D. Ohio, July 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at least one-and a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours that Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants by performing landscaping services. Mr. Candelario Domingez was terminated by Defendants on or about June 24, 2026. Mr. Mendoza Jimenez is a current employee of Defendants. The Plaintiffs are all Mexican citizens, here in the United States on H-2B Visas. The Defendants is a collective that focuses on providing a range of services tailored to meet the needs of their clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Telephone: (440) 543-0670 Facsimile: (440) 543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com MMC MATERIALS: Jones Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MMC Materials Gulf Coast, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00248-B (S.D. Ala., July 9, 2026) contends that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees the compensation, including overtime pay, to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an individual who was employed by Defendant to perform work in South Alabama and primarily in Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama. He was employed by Defendant from June 3, 2024, to March 10, 2025. The Plaintiff was paid what Defendant called additional "Night Shift Pay" when required to work earlier than designated times of day. The Defendant did not include "Night Shift Pay" in calculating a statutorily required regular rate and the payment Defendant made for what it designated as Overtime did not include a one and a half regular rate that included "Night Shift Pay," says the suit. MMC Materials Gulf Coast, LLC is a concrete supplier operating throughout Mississippi, South Alabama, West Tennessee, and Eastern Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq. DAVIS, DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 27180 Pollard Road Daphne, AL 36526 Telephone: (251) 621-1555 E-mail: ian@ddalawfirm.com MONROE ENERGY: Residents Balks at Massive Gasoline Leak in Penn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague and Locks Law Firm have filed a class action on behalf of residents affected by a large, months-long gasoline leak at the Chelsea Tank Farm in Aston, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit is brought by plaintiffs Brian and Michelle Mielnik, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of Pennsylvania residents who owned, rented, or resided in property within one mile of the Chelsea Tank Farm, against Defendants Monroe Energy, LLC and its subsidiary MIPC, LLC. The lawsuit is filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The Chelsea Tank Farm, a hazardous-liquid storage facility located in the middle of a residential community in the Garnet Valley School District, holds twelve large storage tanks with a combined capacity of roughly 1.7 million barrels of gasoline. According to the Class Action Complaint, one of those tanks, called Tank 708 that was originally installed in 1951, developed a roughly one-quarter-inch, manmade hole in its floor and quietly leaked gasoline from at least March 3, 2025 through early December 2025, discharging an estimated 9,000 barrels of gasoline -- approximately 378,000 gallons -- into the surrounding soil, bedrock, and groundwater. The Complaint alleges that Monroe and MIPC first observed gasoline on the facility grounds in August 2025 but did not disclose the leak to federal regulators, residents, or the public until December 2025. During that period, the Complaint alleges, the companies attributed heightened activity at the site to routine "maintenance" and later described the incident to residents as an undefined "issue" at the Tank Farm. Environmental testing has confirmed gasoline-related toxic contaminants including benzene, a known human carcinogen, as well as ethylbenzene, naphthalene, cyclohexane, and n-hexane, in the soil, groundwater, wells, and indoor air of nearby homes, according to the Complaint. More than 100 groundwater monitoring wells have been installed across the Tank Farm and adjacent properties, dozens of which have been found to contain measurable free-floating gasoline, including wells on residential properties. Only a fraction of the released gasoline has been recovered, and the Complaint alleges that the contamination has not been fully delineated. Federal and state regulators are also now involved. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Corrective Action Order in December 2025 requiring that Tank 708 be taken out of service and independently tested, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) separately issued an order finding that the operator unlawfully discharged petroleum into the waters of the Commonwealth, failed to timely notify the agency, and handled gasoline contrary to its air-quality permit. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence, strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and medical monitoring. It seeks compensation for residents' property damage and diminished property value, the cost of environmental remediation, medical monitoring for exposed residents, and other relief. "Our clients have brought this lawsuit on behalf of the families living closest to the Chelsea Tank Farm, whose properties have been damaged by gasoline spreading beneath their homes," said Shanon J. Carson, an Executive Shareholder of Berger Montague. "This lawsuit seeks to hold Monroe Energy and MIPC accountable and to secure the property recovery, environmental cleanup, and long-term medical monitoring that these residents deserve." "Benzene is a known human carcinogen, and no family should have it in the air they breathe or the water they drink," said Andrew J. DuPont, a partner at the Locks Law Firm and chair of the Benzene Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice. "Together with Berger Montague, our law firms are committed to making sure that these residents get the answers and the medical monitoring they need." Residents who owned, rented, or lived within one mile of the Chelsea Tank Farm on or after March 1, 2025 and who would like to learn more about their rights may visit www.bergermontague.com/chelsea-tank-farm-litigation for more information, and may also contact Berger Montague at (800) 424-6690 or by email at info@bergermontague.com, for a free, confidential consultation. About Berger Montague PC Berger Montague PC is a national leader in complex civil litigation and has been at the forefront of important complex, class action, and environmental litigation for over 50 years. The firm's attorneys have served as principal, lead, or liaison counsel in landmark environmental cases, including the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation, the School Asbestos Litigation, and the Three Mile Island litigation. Headquartered in Philadelphia, the firm represents individuals, businesses, and public entities harmed by environmental contamination, and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Learn more at www.bergermontague.com. About the Locks Law Firm The Locks Law Firm represents individuals in catastrophic injury, toxic tort, and environmental matters and has recovered more than $2 billion in verdicts and settlements for its clients. With offices in Philadelphia, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and New York, the firm is known for its benzene and toxic-tort practice. Learn more at www.lockslaw.com. Media Contact: Amy Wall-Monte, Esq. Berger Montague PC (215) 875-3021 Email: awallmonte@bergermontague.com [GN] NEXTCURE INC: M&A Investigates Merger With Avere Therapeutics ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC) related to its merger with Avere Therapeutics, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction, NextCure shareholders are expected to own approximately 1.21% of the combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nextcure-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & Associates PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] NFL PLAYER: Bid to Seal Unredacted Opposition OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD, et al., v. THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY, & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Rubin entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal their unredacted opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and all documents filed in support thereof. The Court further orders that filings at ECF No. 359 shall be sealed; and that the Defendants shall, within ten (10) days of this order, file a redacted, public version of their opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The court is satisfied that the materials contain sufficiently sensitive and confidential information, and that no alternatives to sealing (beyond the redaction which is to be provided) would sufficiently protect the information from disclosure. The Defendant is a collectively bargained welfare plan providing financial assistance to eligible former players suffering from injuries or impairments stemming from their careers. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E2ArWy at no extra charge.[CC] NIGHT US: Settles Discounted Mattress Class Action for $8.163MM --------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased one or more mattresses advertised at a discount from leesa.com, brooklynbedding.com, helixsleep.com or bearmattress.com during specific periods may be eligible to claim $110 per mattress from a class action settlement. Night US LLC and Brooklyn Bedding LLC agreed to pay $8,163,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they deceptively advertised discounts on mattresses sold through their websites. Who can file a claim? To be eligible to file a claim, Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased one or more mattresses that leesa.com, brooklynbedding.com, helixsleep.com or bearmattress.com advertised at a discount. -- They purchased the mattress while physically present in California or as a resident of California. -- The purchase occurred during the following time frames: -- Leesa.com: July 28, 2019, to March 11, 2024 -- Brooklynbedding.com: Sept. 5, 2020, to March 31, 2024 -- Helixsleep.com: Oct. 2, 2020, to March 31, 2024 -- Bearmattress.com: June 4, 2021, to April 1, 2024 Individuals who placed multiple qualifying orders can submit a claim for each one. How much can class members receive? Class members who submit a valid claim are eligible to receive $110 for every qualifying mattress order they placed during the relevant time periods. Qualifying class members who submit a valid claim form will receive a cash payment via check or electronic payment. Qualifying class members who do not submit a claim form will automatically receive a $110 store credit voucher per qualifying mattress order. Class members can use the vouchers for any purchase on the applicable website, including taxes, shipping and handling fees. They are stackable, transferable and combinable with other discount or sales. Vouchers are valid for three years from the date of issuance. How to claim a class action payment Class members who wish to receive a cash payment can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Sept. 25, 2026. Class members who do not submit a claim form will automatically receive a store credit voucher for each qualifying mattress order. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Night US Grossman Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Required information To file an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID and confirmation code from the personalized notice they received. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Physical check mailed to the address provided -- Prepaid Mastercard sent via email -- Store credit voucher $8.16 million settlement fund breakdown The $8,163,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $40,000 -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $1,900,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $5,000 for each plaintiff ($20,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Approximately $8,163,000 The payment of administration costs, attorneys' fees and service awards will not reduce the value of the awards to class members. Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 26, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 25, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 16, 2026 When is the Grossman et al. v. Night US LLC and Brooklyn Bedding LLC payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleges Night US and Brooklyn Bedding deceptively advertised discounts on their websites in violation of California consumer protection laws. The claims also included breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The defendants deny all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $110 per qualifying mattress order Deadline: September 25, 2026 [GN] NORTH MEMORIAL: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Party, Kaliher Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heidi Kaliher and Tracy Knight individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health, Case No. 27-CV-26-11831 (Minn. State. Ct., July 8, 2026) is a class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons impacted by Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of their highly sensitive personal health information and personally identifiable information to third parties. The Defendant solicited and obtained Plaintiffs' and the Class's Sensitive Information as part of its ordinary business activities as a medical services provider. Accordingly, the Defendant encourages its patients to use its website, www.northmemorial.com, and all related website subpages to communicate with their medical providers, schedule appointments and review test results. And in doing so, Defendant represents to patients that its online patient portal is both a secure platform, and the information provided therein will remain secure and confidential. North Memorial fails to disclose or omits the fact that it shares patient's online activities and personal health information with Meta Platform, Inc. via the Meta Pixel (Pixel). The Plaintiffs became aware that Defendant incorporates Meta tracking technology, the Pixel, on the North Memorial Website. Pixel is a snippet of code that, when embedded on a third-party website, tracks the website visitor's activity on that website and sends that data to Meta, says the suit. The Defendant provides patients with an online website, www.northmemorial.com, to inter alia, research information about medical issues and conditions, research doctors, and provide a patient portal, which is available at (https://northmemorial.com/mychart-medical-records/) The Defendant's "patient portal" (https://northmemorial.com/mychart-medical records/) allows patients to check in and schedule appointments online, do E-Visits, communicate with their healthcare providers, review test results, pay a medical bill or sign up for a payment plan, receive paperless billing statements, get a cost estimate, request prescription refills, among other sensitive and private communications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Benjamin R. Cooper, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com benjamin.cooper@zimmreed.com NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Hall Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH HALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10264 (Filed April 1, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 13, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07629 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to provide meal periods; failed to provide rest periods; and failed to pay all wages. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of herself and a putative class defined as "all current and former California employees of Defendants since the date four years prior to the filing of this complaint. Northwood is a Denver, Colorado-based hotel management company established in 2010.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. Jennifer Jambor-Delgado, Esq. Andrew J. Im, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com Jennifer.Jambor-Delgado@jacksonlewis.com Andrew.Im@jacksonlewis.com NORTON NATIONAL: Hernandez Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTON NATIONAL LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, MCCALL NORTON, an individual, MCCALL PECK, an individual, FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Case No. (Filed May 26, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 13, 2026. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04025-AJB-DDL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges these causes of action: failure to pay minimum/regular/local wages, failure to pay state overtime, meal and rest break Labor Code violations, failure to make payments within the required time, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain records, failure to reimburse work related expenses, and violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Norton is a Las Vegas-based event marketing, staffing, and production company founded in 2014 by McCall Peck. They specialize in experiential marketing, street teams, mascot management, and live-stream AV production. Major clients include Google, Feld Entertainment, and Allegiant Stadium.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW 16956 Via De Santa Fe, Suite 1847 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091-4606 Telephone: (619) 886-7224 E-mail: Thomasrutledgelaw@Gmail.Com The Defendant is Represented by: Alex M. Medina. Esq. Eric M. Lloyd, Esq. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP 925 Highland Pointe Dr, Ste 300 Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Email: Alex@Medinamckelvey.Com Eric@medinamckelvey.com Andrew@medinamckelvey.com ONE DEE: Martinez Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ONE DEE THAI CORP. (D/B/A THAI MONEY), CHAYANEE POOSATIT, NICHA BHANDHUMANI, and MUTITA PATTAMAYUKUNTORN GHIA, Case No. 1:26-cv-04184 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) seeks minimum wage, overtime compensation, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Martinez was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his workday performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to preparing food and washing and cleaning dishes (non-tipped duties). Plaintiff Martinez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the suit. Mr. Martinez is a former employee of the Defendants as a food preparer, dishwasher, delivery worker and porter. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at 49-08 43rd Avenue, Woodside, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 OPEN LENDING: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to ANV Group --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Open Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: LPRO) related to its sale to ANV Group Holdings Ltd. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Open Lending shareholders are expected to receive $3.15 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/open-lending-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Huntsman Corporation (NYSE: HUN) related to its sale to Olin Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Huntsman shareholders are expected to receive 0.5476 shares of Olin for each share of Huntsman. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/huntsman-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN) related to its sale to KL Criss Cross Intermediate, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Cross Country shareholders are expected to receive $13.25 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 16, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cross-country-healthcare-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Avanos Medical, Inc. (NYSE: AVNS) related to its sale to affiliates of American Industrial Partners. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Avanos shareholders will receive $25.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for July 22, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/avanos-medical-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Class Cert Filing in Smith Due May 3, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA SMITH, individually, and on behalf all persons similarly situated, v. PALAMERICAN SECURITY, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01290-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: EVENT DATE Deadline to join additional parties: Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file May 3, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file June 2, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file July 6, 2027 reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court declines the Defendant's request to stay discovery pending mediation and to bifurcate class and merits discovery The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines, including a deadline for filing dispositive motions, after ruling on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. These are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties. The Court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown. Should this case settle, counsel shall notify Victoria Ericksen as soon as possible at victoria_ericksen@wawd.uscourts.gov. An attorney or party who fails to give the Court prompt notice of settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems appropriate. PalAmerican is a full-service security company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BX9e9w at no extra charge.[CC] PAYACTIV INC: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice from Payactiv that the April 2025 data breach may have impacted their private information could qualify to submit a claim for up to $2,500 from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident compromised 202,192 people. Payactiv Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming a targeted cyberattack affected its computer systems. The complaint alleged the company failed to adequately protect sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, financial account numbers and Social Security numbers. Who can file a claim for a data breach settlement payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States who received a notice from Payactiv stating the April 2025 data breach may have impacted their private information. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Cash payment for documented losses: Class members can claim up to $2,500 for documented losses traceable to the data breach that occurred between April 3, 2025, and Sept. 12, 2026. This includes monetary losses due to identity theft or fraud; fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit; cosst to replace IDs; and postage to contact financial institutions. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can enroll in two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete credit monitoring services, which includes $1 million in financial fraud insurance and monitoring for fraud or identity theft, unauthorized financial transactions and personal information associated with high-risk transactions. Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive this benefit. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Payactiv Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 25191, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 The claim deadline is Sept. 12, 2026. Class members can submit a credit monitoring enrollment reminder and instruction request online. Required claim information and proof -- To submit a claim or credit monitoring enrollment reminder online, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice. -- To submit a documented losses claim, class members must provide supporting documentation, which may include receipts, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, and other proof of identity theft of fraud. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for mailed claims) Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and litigation costs: Up to $700,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $1,500 each -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by number of enrollments -- Payments to approved claimants: Total determined by number of valid claims Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 12, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 12, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 12, 2026 When is the Payactiv data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit claimed a targeted cyberattack on Payactiv Inc.'s computer systems in April 2025 compromised containing personal information during the breach. It alleged the company failed to adequately safeguard this sensitive data. Payactiv denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,500 plus credit monitoring Deadline: September 12, 2026 [GN] PEADEN LLC: Final Scheduling Order Entered in Smelkinson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARI SMELKINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEADEN, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00104-TKW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II entered a final scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadlines proposed by the parties for amending the pleadings and joining additional parties (Aug. 28, 2026, for the Plaintiff and Sept. 28, 2026, for the Defendant) are adopted by the Court. 2. The deadlines proposed by the parties for initial and expert disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively, are adopted by the Court. 3. Discovery deadline: (a) The fact (March 31, 2027) and expert (June 21, 2027) discovery deadlines proposed by the parties are adopted by the Court. 4. The deadline for filing a motion to certify the class is 28 days after the discovery deadline. Peaden specializes in offering HVAC, heating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, maintenance and repair services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTBh6o at no extra charge.[CC] PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: PeopleShare Sue Over Labor Law Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a staffing company is suing its insurer, saying it was left to defend a labor-law class action alone -- and denied as one of many. PeopleShare Industrial, a temporary-staffing firm, sued Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company on July 10, 2026, in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Its complaint accuses the insurer of ducking its duty to defend and of handling the claim as part of a portfolio-wide coverage position rather than on its own facts. The trouble started upstream. A temporary worker filed a putative class action against PeopleShare in Cook County in December 2025, according to the complaint. That suit alleges PeopleShare violated the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act by failing to give day and temporary laborers the required employment notices and the disclosures identifying the clients they were assigned to. PeopleShare tendered the suit to Philadelphia Indemnity under the Staffing Service Professional Liability Coverage Part of two policies -- one with limits of $3 million per wrongful act, the other $5 million, the complaint states. The dispute turns on one set of clauses. PeopleShare quotes the policy's promise that the insurer "shall have the right and duty to investigate, defend, and conduct settlement negotiations, including selection of defense counsel, in any 'suit' seeking those 'damages.'" A covered "wrongful act," the policy says, is "a negligent act, error, or omission committed or alleged to have been committed by you or any person for whom you are legally responsible in the rendering of 'staffing services.'" A broad endorsement defines those services as "services provided by a staffing company to their clients including but not limited to" a long list, per the complaint. The alleged failure to give a worker the required notices while placing him at a client site, PeopleShare argues, falls squarely within that language. The insurer saw it differently. In a letter dated June 24, 2026, it said it "will not be participating in the defense of PeopleShare in the Lawsuit, or indemnifying PeopleShare for any settlement or judgment entered therein," according to the complaint. Its position, the filing says, was that the underlying suit "does not allege that PeopleShare committed any acts, errors or omissions in the rendering of 'staffing services' to PeopleShare's clients." The complaint says the insurer also cited several policy exclusions. The next allegation is the one claims professionals will notice. PeopleShare claims, on information and belief, that the denial was not an individualized decision. It points to a June 9, 2026 email in which the insurer's claims adjuster allegedly told PeopleShare's broker that "this will be a disclaimer" and that the insurer was weighing "a declaratory action, holding things in abeyance or proceeding with a sample case." To PeopleShare, that "sample case" reference signals a group of similar claims being handled as one exposure rather than on their individual merits. That allegation drives a third count under Section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code, which lets policyholders recover fees, costs, and a penalty when an insurer's conduct is "vexatious and unreasonable." PeopleShare alleges the insurer denied coverage against the plain language of the policies and put its own aggregate financial exposure ahead of its policyholder. Alongside that, it brings claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract, and seeks a declaration that a defense is owed, its defense costs, consequential damages, interest, and the statutory penalty. These are allegations that have not been tested in court. The complaint was filed on July 10, 2026, no judge has ruled on whether Philadelphia Indemnity owes PeopleShare a defense. [GN] PINE LAKE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. PINE LAKE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD. and PINA TONDO ENTERPRISE CORPORATION D/B/A PINA'S PIZZA, Case No. 1:26-cv-24703 (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant oversees, manages, leases, operates, maintains, and/or oversees a commercial property in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the Plaintiff. Pine Lake is a shopping center located in the heart of LaPorte just north of downtown on Pine Lake Avenue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com PLANET FITNESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sep. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Planet Fitness, Inc., ("Planet Fitness" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLNT) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between November 6, 2025 - May 6, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Planet Fitness investors have until September 14, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/planet-fitness-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. On May 7, 2026, Planet Fitness reported its first quarter 2026 financial results and updated its full-year outlook. Among other items, Planet Fitness disclosed that "2026 is off to a slower than expected start from a net member growth perspective" as the Company faced "internal and external headwinds during our peak sign-up period." The Company further disclosed that it was pausing its planned national Black Card price increase pending a broader pricing review. In addition, Planet Fitness stated that, based on "lower net joins than planned in the first quarter" and the decision to pause the Black Card price increase, it was reducing several of its 2026 growth expectations. The Company lowered expected system-wide same club sales growth to approximately 1%, compared to its prior guidance of 4% to 5%; revenue growth to approximately 7%, compared to prior guidance of approximately 9%; adjusted EBITDA growth to approximately 6%, compared to prior guidance of approximately 10%; adjusted net income to a decrease of approximately 2%, compared to prior guidance of 4% to 5% growth; and adjusted diluted EPS growth to approximately 4%, compared to prior guidance of 9% to 10%. On this news, Planet Fitness's stock price fell $19.95 per share, or 31.19%, to close at $44.01 per share on May 7, 2026. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. The Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] PLANET FITNESS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies institutional investors in Planet Fitness, Inc. (NYSE: PLNT) that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased PLNT securities between November 6, 2025 and May 6, 2026. Request an institutional investor loss assessment or call (212) 363-7500. PLNT shares declined from $63.96 to $44.01 on May 7, 2026, a $19.95 per-share loss, or approximately 31.19%, after the Company announced reduced 2026 expectations and withdrew its three-year growth algorithm. To be considered for lead plaintiff, investors must file by September 14, 2026. Institutional Investor Securities Recovery ERISA Considerations The complaint asserts that Planet Fitness gave investors an overly positive picture of its ability to drive membership growth through its national marketing campaign and pricing strategy. For institutional investors, the alleged decline may require portfolio-level review, including trade-date analysis, loss measurement, and fiduciary assessment. The action claims that the Company's peak first-quarter sign-up period was weaker than expected because its marketing messaging allegedly failed to resonate with core fitness beginners and casual gym-goers. Planet Fitness also paused the planned national Black Card price increase and revised key 2026 targets. Fiduciary Obligations and Recovery Options Institutional holders may wish to evaluate whether their PLNT losses warrant active participation in the case. Relevant considerations include: -- Purchases of PLNT common stock during the November 6, 2025 to May 6, 2026 Class Period -- Exposure across pension, union, endowment, foundation, or asset-management portfolios -- Documented losses tied to the May 7, 2026 decline following the Company's revised outlook -- Whether the institution has governance policies requiring review of securities class action opportunities -- Whether serving as lead plaintiff would allow the institution to oversee litigation strategy on behalf of the class Case Summary for Large PLNT Holders As averred in the complaint, Planet Fitness previously projected 2026 system-wide same club sales growth in the 4% to 5% range, revenue growth of approximately 9%, adjusted EBITDA growth of approximately 10%, and adjusted diluted EPS growth of 9% to 10%. The Company later revised those expectations to approximately 1%, 7%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. "Institutional investors play a critical role in securities class actions because they can help ensure that shareholder claims are prosecuted efficiently and with accountability. Here, the alleged $19.95 per-share decline gives institutions a concrete basis to assess whether their portfolios suffered recoverable losses." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Contact us to learn more about institutional recovery options or call (212) 363-7500. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP -- Top 50 securities litigation firm (ISS, seven consecutive years). Over 70 professionals. Hundreds of millions recovered. Frequently Asked Questions About the PLNT Lawsuit Q: How much did PLNT stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 31.19%, a decline of $19.95 per share, after Planet Fitness disclosed slower net member growth, reduced 2026 guidance, withdrew its three-year growth algorithm, and paused the planned Black Card price increase. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period at allegedly inflated prices and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation. Q: What specific misstatements does the PLNT lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Planet Fitness made materially false or misleading statements regarding the efficacy of its marketing strategy, its ability to achieve projected membership growth, its planned Black Card price increase, and its three-year growth algorithm during the Class Period. Q: When did Planet Fitness allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from November 6, 2025 to May 6, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures on May 7, 2026 revealed information that caused a significant stock decline. Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run. Q: What happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney will review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of your potential eligibility. Q: What if I already sold my PLNT shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate. Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com[GN] POSH PEANUT: Gautam Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DIVYA GAUTAM, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSH PEANUT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26-2-18753-3 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02447 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Posh Peanut violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading information in the subject lines. Posh Peanut, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter A. Talevich, Esq. Emaan R. Jaberi, Esq. Clara Virden, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 E-mail: peter.talevich@klgates.com emaan.jaberi@klgates.com clara.virden@klgates.com QUEST HOSPITALITY: Anich Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY ANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and KRYSTLE ANICH, v. QUEST HOSPITALITY CONCEPTS, LLC D/B/A THE CITIZEN, Case No. 3:25-cv-01994-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following proposed classes: Tip-Notice Class: "All current and former individuals employed by the Defendant at The Citizen in Walton County, Florida, as servers (including those titled "server," "waiter," or "waitress") during the five (5) years preceding the filing of this action who were paid less than the full Florida minimum wage based on Defendant’s taking of a tip credit and who did not receive the legally required tip-credit notice before the tip credit was taken." Dual-Jobs Class: "All current and former individuals employed by the Defendant at The Citizen in Walton County, Florida, as servers (including those titled "server," "waiter," or "waitress") during the five (5) years preceding the filing of this action who were paid a direct cash wage below the full Florida minimum wage while required to perform non-tipped work (either duties of a separate, non-tipped occupation or related side-work exceeding "more than occasional" limits), without being paid at least the full Florida minimum wage for that time." The Plaintiff also seeks appointment as Class Representative, appointment of USA Employment Lawyers as Class Counsel, certification under Rule 23(b)(3), and entry of an order approving notice to the Classes. Class certification is the most efficient and fair way to resolve these uniform practices for approximately sixty (60) servers over the last five years at the one restaurant location, the suit says. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide the tip credit notice required before claiming a reduced tipped minimum wage and required servers to perform substantial non-tipped side work while paying them at the reduced tipped rate. The Defendant is a Florida-based hospitality and restaurant management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AvtjzW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail:michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy C. Branning, Esq. Jacob F. Barnes, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 13 Palafox Place, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (448) 239-6500 E-mail: jbranning@joneswalker.com jacobbarnes@joneswalker.com pimperial@joneswalker.com jdallman@joneswalker.com RAPID INVESTMENTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY HALL, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RAPID INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a RELEASE PAY; and AXIOM BANK N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05039-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order granting unopposed motion for settlement class certification. -- The following Nationwide Class is certified for settlement purposes: "All persons in the United States who were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detention center, or any other law enforcement facility; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility; and (3) issued a prepaid debit card by Rapid Financial Solutions, LLC and/or Axiom Bank between Jan. 16, 2024 and June 30, 2026, inclusive." -- The following Washington Subclass is certified for settlement purposes: "All persons who were: (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detention center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the State of Washington; (2) entitled to the return of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from the facility; and (3) issued a prepaid debit card by Rapid Financial Solutions, LLC and/or Axiom Bank between Jan. 16, 2024 and June 30, 2026, inclusive." -- The Court appoints the Plaintiff Ashley Hall as Class Representative and Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). Rapid is a private market investment management firm specializing in placing commitments from institutional and private investors. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3vYCSW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com ehamburger@sylaw.com RBC GLOBAL: Agrees to Settle Trailer Fees Class Action for $45MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a third bank-owned fund company, RBC Global Asset Management Inc., is proposing to settle an investor class action over the payment of trailer fees to discount brokers for $45 million. Already, a couple of bank fund companies (TD Asset Management Inc. and CIBC and CIBC Trust Corp.) have settled similar class actions. Now, a case against RBC GAM and RBC Investor Services Trust on behalf of investors that held RBC or PH&N funds at a discount broker between the end of 2003 and July 25, 2024 has tentatively been settled, pending court approval. The case is one of series of proposed class actions that sought damages on behalf of fund investors based on the fact that mutual funds paid trailer fees to discount brokers, in part, for services that the brokers were prevented from providing based on the limitations of their registration -- namely, that they couldn't provide their clients with ongoing investment advice -- and that fees paid for services the brokers didn't provide reduced the value of investors' holdings. In 2022, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) banned the practice of mutual funds paying trailers to discount brokers. The proposed settlement on behalf of investors in the RBC and PH&N funds faces a hearing on Sept. 8 to secure approval from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. At that hearing, in addition to reviewing the terms of the settlement, the court will also consider proposed legal fees of up to $12.6 million, plus disbursements (up to $200,000) and tax on those costs. In addition to the legal costs, the settlement total will also be reduced by the costs of funding the litigation. Affected investors now have until Aug. 18 to opt out of the proposed deal. Previously, TDAM settled the claims against it for $70.25 million, and CIBC settled for $26 million. The banks haven't admitted any wrongdoing in those settlements. Unresolved cases remain outstanding against the fund managers of the other Big Six banks, and against Mackenzie Financial Corp. [GN] REAGAN GOLD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 25 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Hoffman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Reagan Gold Group LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06003-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order granting the stipulated motion to amend the Court's Oct. 19, 2025 Scheduling Order as follows: Tasks Date The Plaintiff's expert disclosures and Sept. 25, 2026 motion for class certification: Completion of class certification expert Nov. 13, 2026 depositions: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Nov. 20, 2026 for class certification and noting date: Reagan specializes in assisting clients with diversifying their investment portfolios through the acquisition of gold and silver. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J61k3y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com cmiller@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Mark Rose, Esq. PACIFIC NORTHWEST FAMILY LAW 216 South Palouse Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 Telephone: (509) 572-3700 Facsimile: (509) 572-3701 E-mail: dmr@pnwfamilylaw.com REAGAN GOLD: Parties Seek Amendment of Class Cert Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HOFFMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. REAGAN GOLD GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06003-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulated motion to amend the Court's Oct. 19, 2025 Scheduling Order by extending the remaining class certification and related discovery deadlines by 60 days. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court adopt the following revised schedule: Tasks Date The Plaintiff's expert disclosures and Sept. 25, 2026 motion for class certification: Completion of class certification expert Nov. 13, 2026 depositions: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Nov. 20, 2026 for class certification and noting date: Despite the Parties' diligent efforts, limited discovery directly relevant to class certification remains outstanding, warranting a modest extension of the remaining class certification schedule. The requested extension will allow the Parties to complete the outstanding discovery, avoid unnecessary discovery motion practice, and present the Court with a complete factual record on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. Because the Court expressly reserved all remaining Rule 16 scheduling deadlines pending resolution of class certification, the requested extension will not affect any dispositive motion, pretrial, or trial deadlines or otherwise prejudice either party. Reagan specializes in assisting clients with diversifying their investment portfolios through the acquisition of gold and silver. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cj7WuT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com cmiller@straussborrelli.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Mark Rose, Esq. PACIFIC NORTHWEST FAMILY LAW 216 South Palouse Street Walla Walla, WA 99362 Telephone: (509) 572-3700 Facsimile: (509) 572-3701 E-mail: dmr@pnwfamilylaw.com REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit Over Algorithmic Rent-Setting Software --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Strupp, writing for MultiFamily Dive, reports that RealPage and Willow Bridge, one of the country's largest apartment managers, face another lawsuit related to algorithmic rent-setting software, this time in Philadelphia. Plaintiff and tenant Yiyao Liu filed a class-action suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging the two firms violated the city's rent price-fixing statute, according to the July 6 complaint. Under Philadelphia law, it is illegal to provide software that collects non-public competitor data and uses it to recommend rental prices, fees, terms or occupancy levels -- and it is also illegal for a landlord to pay for it, per the complaint. Liu, who lived in a building managed by Willow Bridge, alleges that "RealPage provided such software, and Willow Bridge used it at its Philadelphia properties." Dive Insight: In October 2024, the Philadelphia City Council unanimously passed a bill barring and penalizing anti-competitive rental practices, "including price coordination effected through algorithmic software," per the complaint. The law took effect on Feb. 11, 2025, making Philadelphia the second U.S. municipality to enact such a measure after San Francisco, where its algorithmic rent-pricing law took effect on Oct. 14, 2024. Philadelphia Code Sec. 9-813 makes it unlawful to "engage in price coordination for residential rental units" in the city, "including through the sale, licensure, or provision of any service or product that involves price coordination." The statute also makes it illegal to "use, subscribe to, or contract or pay for" such services. Nonetheless, the complaint alleges that Willow Bridge did use RealPage's software, which collects non-public competitor data from numerous landlords and uses "one or more algorithms to recommend rents and occupancy levels, that is, 'price coordination.'" The lawsuit specifically cites RealPage algorithmic software products, including AIRevenue Management, YieldStar and Lease Rent Options. A spokesperson for RealPage said the company does not comment on pending litigation. Willow Bridge did not respond to Multifamily Dive's request for comment. Previously, RealPage said it continues to believe that its revenue management products, and its customers' use of them, have always been legal. Liu is asking for a jury trial and seeks three times the amount of actual damages or statutory damages of $2,000 per violation, as well as payment for attorneys' fees and an injunction on the firms' use of unauthorized rent-setting software in the city. The same day the Philadelphia lawsuit was filed, Willow Bridge agreed to settle a separate lawsuit related to its use of RealPage's rent price-setting software. The Department of Justice filed a proposed settlement on July 6 to resolve its claims against Willow Bridge in The United States et al. v. RealPage et al. federal antitrust case, which alleges that the landlord violated the Sherman Act barring unfair monopolies. That agreement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, is part of the DOJ's ongoing enforcement against algorithmic coordination, use of competitively sensitive data and other anticompetitive practices in rental markets, according to the agency. As more cities and states pass or propose their own algorithmic rent pricing laws, RealPage has started to go on the offensive. On Oct. 16, 2025, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law S.7882, which amends the state's existing antitrust law to prohibit the use of pricing algorithms to set rent prices. In response, RealPage filed a complaint on Nov. 26, 2025, arguing that the law represents a "sweeping and unconstitutional ban on lawful speech specifically intended to outlaw software developed and sold by companies like Plaintiff RealPage, Inc." [GN] RELLEVATE CT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 9 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Hora v. Rellevate CT, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00570 (D. Conn., ), the Hon. Judge Sarah F. Russell entered an order adopting the following schedule as consistent with the purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. Initial disclosures will be served by August 28, 2026. Any motion by the plaintiff to join additional parties shall be filed by July 9, 2026. Motions filed after that date must include, in addition to all other requirements under the applicable rules, a showing of good cause for the delay. The plaintiff shall have until July 17, 2026, to file any motions to amend the pleadings. Motions filed after that date must include, in addition to all other requirements under the applicable rules, a showing of good cause for the delay. Any motion by the defendants to join additional parties or respond to the complaint shall be filed by July 9, 2026. Motions filed after that date must include, in addition to all other requirements under the applicable rules, a showing of good cause for the delay. Discovery shall commence immediately if it has not already. Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due November 9, 2026. Defendants' opposition to class certification will be due December 9, 2026. Plaintiff's reply to the opposition to class certification will be due December 23, 2026. Fact witness depositions will be completed by February 26, 2027. All discovery, expert as well as fact, shall be completed (not propounded) by March 15, 2027. Discovery will not be conducted in phases. Plaintiff will designate any experts, and will provide defendants' counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), by February 12, 2027. Depositions of any such experts shall be completed March 12, 2027. Defendants will designate any experts, and will provide plaintiff's counsel with reports from retained experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), by February 12, 2027. Depositions of any such experts will be completed by March 12, 2027. A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a claim or counterclaim for damages by March 12, 2027. Summary judgment motions, if any, must be filed by May 7, 2027. The Joint Trial Memorandum required by the Standing Order on Trial Memoranda in Civil Cases shall be filed by June 25, 2027. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rellevate is a financial services company.[CC] RICHEMONT NORTH: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Richemont North America, Inc. d/b/a Chloe, Case No. 0:26-cv-03207-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., July 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.chloe.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Homan Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS HOMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Nicholas Homan, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of Riverside, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02516-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Nov. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification. On Nov. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. On same day, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 18, 2026, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an Order (1) denying the motion to modify the schedule order; (2) directing the parties to meet and confer as to class certification; and (3) continuing the hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment to March 9, 2026. On Mar. 31, 2026, Judge Bernal entered an Order (1) striking the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and the Defendant's reply in support of the motion for summary judgment; (2) vacating the April 6, 2026 hearing; and (3) setting a new hearing for May 4, 2026. On June 3, 2026, Judge Bernal entered judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Andrew, et al. v. Hedberg, Case No. 26-4167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 7, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 11, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NICHOLAS HOMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Omid Nosrati, Esq. NOSRATILAW, APLC 1801 Century Park, E Suite 840 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Defendant-Appellee COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE is represented by: Victor D. Gonzalez, Esq. Danny Young-In Yoo, Esq. LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 6033 W. Century Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 ROBLOX CORP: Extension of Discovery-Related Deadlines Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soucek et al., v. Roblox Corporation et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the stipulation to extend L.R. 37-3 discovery-related motions deadline. Accordingly, the Parties propose an extension of the deadline to file pre-class certification fact discovery-related motions from July 7, 2026, to and including July 28, 2026. This extension is not sought for purposes of delay or any other improper purpose and will not impact any other deadline in this case. Additionally, no party will suffer prejudice as a result of this extension. Roblox is an American video game developer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=akup2e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: afreedman@weitzlux.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle C. Wong, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: kwong@cooley.com ROGUE FABRICATION: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Rogue Fabrication data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Rogue Fabrication data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Rogue Fabrication Security Incident: What Happened? Rogue Fabrication, an Oregon-based vendor of tubing and pipe bending machinery, has reported a data breach impacting 35,000 individuals. According to a report filed with the Oregon Department of Justice, the Rogue Fabrication data breach occurred on June 21, 2026 and was reported to the department on July 10, 2026. That same day, Rogue Fabrication began sending out notices to affected individuals. At the time this post was made, no additional information about the nature or scope of the breach was available. What You Can Do After the Rogue Fabrication Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Rogue Fabrication data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Rogue Fabrication to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] RUAN TRANSPORTATION: Brown Files Consumer Credit Suit in M.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruan Transportation Management Systems, Inc. The case is captioned as KESHIA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01822-JKM (M.D. Pa., June 30, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged consumer credit violation. Ruan Transportation Management Systems, Inc. is a transportation company headquartered in Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SAFEMOON LLC: $12MM Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, as Lead Counsel for investors in the SafeMoon securities class action, announced a proposed $12 million settlement resolving claims against Debtor Defendant SafeMoon US, LLC. The settlement follows mediation before Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the District of Utah, capping litigation that began in February 2022. That litigation included related criminal charges against former SafeMoon CEO Braden John Karony, who was convicted in May 2025 of securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering conspiracy, as well as a parallel SEC enforcement action. The settlement was reached in coordination with the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee following SafeMoon's December 2023 bankruptcy filing, and it will provide an estimated $10 million net recovery to Class Members. Eligible Class Members are investors who purchased, or were solicited to purchase, SFM Tokens directly from SafeMoon between March 8, 2021, and November 1, 2023. Recovery will be distributed on a pro rata basis according to a FIFO-calculated loss formula. Class Members who wish to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement, the fee request, or both, must submit their request in writing no later than October 1, 2026. Please visit www.SafeMoonSettlement.com to submit a claim and visit this webpage for additional information. Contact: John T. Jasnoch, Esq/ Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 233-4565 jjasnoch@scott-scott.com [GN] SAFEWAY INC: Asks Court to Set Class Cert Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WILSON, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated; DONOVAN DECOSTER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00478-MTK (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to specially set a briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification, which is due no later than Sept. 6, 2026 under the Court's Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to modify schedule and extend deadlines. There is good cause to re-set a 60-day briefing schedule because the Defendant will need to serve written discovery and then notice and take the depositions of any witnesses or unnamed putative class members, whom the Plaintiff relies in seeking class certification. None of these individuals, however, have been identified to Defendant nor will their declarations be available until after the Plaintiff files his anticipated motion for class certification. Permitting the Defendant to complete this declarant-based discovery once the Plaintiff files his anticipated motion for class certification will ensure that necessary discovery is completed and the factual issues are thoroughly briefed before this Court rules on class certification. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Defendant, alleging three claims pertaining to alleged violations of Oregon's wage and predictive scheduling laws in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Coos. Safeway is a major American supermarket chain. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mzNyz0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: KC Hovda, Esq. MILLER NASH LLP 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 1100 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 906-0479 Facsimile: (206) 622-7485 E-mail: kc.hovda@millernash.com - and - Mara D. Curtis, Esq. Brian M. Noh, Esq. Rae Y. Chung, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 515 South Flower St., Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 Facsimile: (213) 457-8080 E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com bnoh@reedsmith.com raechung@reedsmith.com SDH SERVICES: Magana Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- MAGDALENA RANGEL MAGANA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 268TCV21561 (Cal. Super., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked on holidays and received an earnings code called "Holiday Worked." However, Plaintiff's wage statements when she earned Holiday Worked failed to include said hours into the total hours worked figure. For example, for pay period ending November 13, 2025, Plaintiffs wage statement showed that she worked 16.07 regular hours, 0.08 overtime hours, and 8.05 holiday worked, which total 24.2 hours worked. However, the same wage statement was erroneously recorded. The Plaintiffs other wage statements revealed the same issue, says the suit. During the relevant time period, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non exempt employee from approximately as a housekeeper at their client facility in Sylmar, California. SDH SERVICES WEST owns and operates a food services and facilities management company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. Tiffany L. Luu, Esq. Joseph C. Ramli, Esq. Guneez Ibrahim, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 9575 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 Telephone: (323) 922-2000 Facsimile: (323) 922-2000 E-mail: william@justiceforworkers.com tluu@justiceforworkers.com jramli@justiceforworkers.com gibrahim@justiceforworkers.com SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice of settlement. 1. Proposed Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only – The Parties have proposed the certification of the following Settlement Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Seagate from Sept. 14, 2020 through April 19, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) any current or former officers or directors of Seagate; (iii) the Immediate Family Members of any Individual Defendant or any current or former officer or director of Seagate; (iv) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or owned or controlled, during the Class Period; (v) the legal representatives, heirs, affiliates, successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons and entities, in their respective capacity as such; and (vi) the presiding Judge, their staff, and the Immediate Family Members of the Judge and their staff. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities that submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation. 3. For the reasons discussed at the preliminary approval hearing, the cy pres recipient shall be the University of Miami School of Law Investor Rights Clinic. 4. The Court will hold a hearing ("Settlement Hearing") on Nov. 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom videoconference. Seagate is a major global data storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vRaFZT at no extra charge.[CC] SECURITAS SECURITY: Patel BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as HENNY PATEL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., CBRE, INC., and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-08250, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08250 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology company.[BN] Defendant Microsoft Corporation is represented by: Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq. Alborz Hassani, Esq. Benjamin Kabe, Esq. 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1445 Facsimile: (312) 324-1001 E-mail: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com al.hassani@morganlewis.com benjamin.kabe@morganlewis.com SIMPLIFIED DRIVER: Dorman Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------ KYLE DORMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. SIMPLIFIED DRIVER STAFFING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21576 (Cal. Super Ct., July 9, 2026) alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failed overtime compensation, failed to provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest periods, and failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings the first through eighth causes of action individually and as a class action on behalf of himself and certain current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Drivers who performed work for Defendants in California. The Class consists of Plaintiff and all other persons who have worked for any Defendants in California as hourly-paid, non-exempt Drivers during the statute of limitations period applicable to the pleaded claims. The Defendants employ drivers as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees to perform driving and related transportation services for Defendants' customers. Simplified Driver Staffing, LLC is a California driver staffing company that supplies commercial drivers to trucking and logistics customers throughout Southern California, including out of a facility located at 2250 E Dominguez Street, Carson, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arash Sadat, Esq. Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq. Ruchika Diaz, Esq. MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 628-3856 E-mail: arash@msdlawyers.com camron@msdlawyers.com ruchika@msdlawyers.com SOCIAL SECURITY: Appeals Court Judgment in L.N.P. Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANK BISIGNANO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank Bisignano, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The nature of suit is stated as 865 Social Security - Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (RSI). On Jan. 14, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to enter final judgment. On Feb. 9, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to stay execution of unfavorable judgment pending appeal. On Apr. 27, 2026, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to enter final judgment and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to stay execution of unfavorable judgment pending appeal. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The appellate case is styled as L.N.P. v. Frank Bisignano, Case No. 26-1825, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph J. Green, Esq. Ira Thane Kasdan, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 670 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 342-8849 (202) 342-8864 - and - Steven W. Schlesinger, Esq. Damon William Suden, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-7740 Defendants-Appellants FRANK BISIGNANO, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, et al. are represented by: Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Esq. Meghan Elizabeth Loftus, Esq. Kirstin O'Connor, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 - and - Todd Blanche, Esq. Yuri S. Fuchs, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 SPACE EXPLORATION: Barati Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAHDI BARATI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; BLUEWAVE RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21097 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in November 2025. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. is an American aerospace, artificial intelligence, and communications company, headquartered in Texas. BlueWave Resource Partners, LLC is a recruitment, headhunting, and staffing agency, headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. Jason Kwak, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com enabiev@moonlawgroup.com jkwak@moonlawgroup.com SPARC GROUP: Expert Disclosures Due Nov. 1 ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter their joint proposed scheduling order: Fact Discovery cutoff: Dec. 18, 2026 Expert disclosures: Nov. 1, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Dec. 30, 2026 L/D to hear dispositive motions Feb. 18, 2027 File any motions in limine: Apr. 13, 2027 File form exhibit and witness lists: May 14, 2027 Pretrial Conference: May 4, 2027 Trial: May 17, 2027 SPARC is a major retail operating company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PX2OAv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Pike, Esq. Trisha Monesi, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555; Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: bpike@tomorrowlaw.com tmonesi@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. Mackenzie Mullin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, Ca 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com mmullin@seyfarth.com SPORTSEDTV INC: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Suit for $500,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that SportsEdTV has agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged that sports education company unlawfully disclosed consumers' private video viewing information to third parties without consent. The $500,000 SportsEdTV class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 26, 2026. The deal covers United States residents identified in SportsEdTV's records as having watched videos on SportsEdTV.com at any time from May 9, 2023 to May 16, 2025. Court documents state that 1,264 SportsEdTV subscribers are included in the settlement class. The court-approved website for the SportsEdTV class action settlement can be found at SportsEdTVSettlement.com. SportsEdTV settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. Class members who are California residents will receive twice as much for their cash payment due to California privacy law. The amount each class member receives from the settlement will depend on the total number of valid claims filed. As part of the class action settlement, SportsEdTV has deactivated the Facebook pixel on its website so as to not share specific information and customer transaction data with third parties, except as permitted by law. To submit a SportsEdTV settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All SportsEdTV claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 10, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the SportsEdTV settlement final approval following a hearing on February 8, 2027. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The SportsEdTV class action lawsuit alleged that the sports education company disclosed to third parties without permission private information that identified an individual as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services, allegedly in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act. [GN] SPOTHERO INC: Agrees to Settle Parking Fees Class Suit for $975,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that SpotHero has agreed to a $975,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the company unlawfully failed to display the full price of parking reservations on its website and mobile app until the end of the checkout process. The $975,000 SpotHero class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 29, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who, between July 1, 2024 and March 13, 2025, purchased at least one parking reservation through SpotHero.com or through SpotHero's mobile app while in California and used the "Map View" option to search for the parking spot. The court-approved website for the SpotHero class action settlement can be found at SHPricingSettlement.com. SpotHero settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment. SpotHero class members who do not submit a claim form or opt out of the deal will automatically receive a credit voucher, deposited to their SpotHero wallet, that can be put toward any purchase from SpotHero, including for taxes and fees, for 36 months after issuance. Credit vouchers can be stacked or combined with other discounts, offers or credits provided by SpotHero, and any unused credits can be put toward future orders. The average settlement payout per class member will be approximately $4.76. The final amount of each class member's cash payment or credit voucher may increase or decrease, depending on the average amount in service fees they paid SpotHero. To submit a SpotHero settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All SpotHero claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by August 25, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the SpotHero settlement final approval following a hearing on September 18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The SpotHero class action lawsuit alleged that the parking reservation service engaged in "drip pricing" by failing to disclose the total price of parking reservations, including service fees, to consumers until near the end of the checkout process, allegedly in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. [GN] SPOTIFY USA: Standing Order Entered in Winfrey Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENE WINFREY, v. SPOTIFY USA INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10548-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered a standing order as follows: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. The Defendant has appeared and moved to dismiss the claims against it. The plaintiff must either: (1) amend his Complaint or (2) respond to the motion to dismiss. In deference to plaintiff's pro se status, the Court extends his time to amend the Complaint or respond to the motion to dismiss until Aug. 6, 2026. The Plaintiff must submit his Amended Complaint (or, in the alternative, his papers in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss) to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit no later than August 6, 2026. If the plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint, he must caption the document "Amended Complaint," and label it with the docket number of this action: 25-CV-10548. 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 the defendant's motion to dismiss, his claims may be dismissed. 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, at his address of record: P.O. Box 45, 118 E 124th St., New York, NY 10035. Spotify provides an entertainment software. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GOP0SP at no extra charge.[CC] SSG LOWELL: Faces Jones Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SSG Lowell Investment LLC. The case is captioned as DEANNA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SSG LOWELL INVESTMENT LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0007439 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., June 30, 2026). A case management conference is set for January 7, 2027, before Judge Blanca Banuelos. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violation. SSG Lowell Investment LLC is a senior care real estate company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W. Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506 Telephone: (213) 493-6300 STARBUCKS CORP: Hewitt Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks Corporation. The case is captioned as JESSICA HEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0007455 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., June 30, 2026). A case management conference is set for December 30, 2026, before Judge Jayne Lee. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violation. Starbucks Corporation is a coffeehouse and roasting chain headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 439-5223 STIIIZY INC: $2.95MM Settlement Final Court Hearing Set Oct. 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that STIIIZY agreed to a $2.95 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised personally identifiable information or private health information. The STIIIZY settlement benefits individuals whose personal information may have been accessed by an unauthorized third party in the STIIIZY data breach announced on Jan. 7, 2025. According to the STIIIZY data breach class action lawsuit, STIIIZY failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented the 2024 data breach. As a result of this negligence, consumers had their information stolen by an unauthorized third party, the plaintiffs contend. STIIIZY is a multi-state, vertically integrated cannabis company that controls growing operations, lifestyle product manufacturing and retail dispensaries. STIIIZY has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.95 million class action settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the STIIIZY settlement, class members can receive a cash payment or a reimbursement of documented expenses related to the data breach. Class members who experienced losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $7,500 in reimbursement for these losses. This includes unreimbursed fraudulent charges, identity theft damages, credit monitoring expenses, bank fees and other damages. Class members who did not experience losses as a result of the data breach can receive a proportional share of the settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount claimed by each class member. California class members will receive twice the share of non-California class members. All class members are eligible for two years of free credit monitoring and insurance services. This includes three-bureau credit monitoring, up to $1 million in identity theft insurance coverage, fraud consultation and identity theft restoration services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 26, 2026. The final approval hearing for the STIIIZY data breach settlement is scheduled for Oct. 19, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 10, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from STIIIZY informing them their information may have been compromised in an October 2024 data breach or those who believe they may have been impacted by the incident. Potential Award Up to $7,500 Proof of Purchase Documentation of data breach-related losses, such as receipts or bank statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/10/2026 Case Name In re: STIIIZY Inc. Data Breach Security Litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00490, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 10/19/2026 Settlement Website STIIIZYDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator STIIIZY Data Breach Claims Administrator P.O. Box 1868 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@StiiizyDataBreachSettlement.com (855) 907-2590 Class Counsel Ryan J. Clarkson Yana Hart Bryan P. Thompson CLARKSON LAW FIRM P.C. Thomas E. Loeser COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP Defense Counsel Ekwan E. Rhow BIRD MARELLA RHOW LICENBERG DROOKS & NESSIM LLP [GN] STOCKX LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Jan. 29, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL MANSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STOCKX LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04250-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order amending case schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Defendant's initial document July 24, 2026 production due: The Parties' document production Sept. 25, 2026 substantial completion deadline: Further case management conference: Oct. 7, 2026, 10:00 a.m. Last day to notice non-expert Dec. 18, 2026 depositions re: class certification: Last day to complete non-expert Jan. 22, 2027 depositions re: class certification: Motion for class certification, Jan. 29, 2027 including any expert reports upon which the Plaintiff relies: Opposition to class certification, Feb. 26, 2027 including any counter expert reports upon which the Defendant relies: Hearing on motion for class certification: April 20, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. The Defendant is an online marketplace and clothing reseller, primarily of sneakers. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PLLhes at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Logan J. Hagerty, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com lhagerty@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Kari M. Rollins, Esq. Samuel Cournoyer, Esq. Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. Nolan J. Walter, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 653-8700 Facsimile: (212) 653-8701 E-mail: krollins@sheppardmullin.com scournoyer@sheppardmullin.com wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com nwalter@sheppardmullin.com STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT: Hart Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS HART, individually and for others similarly situated v. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02202-JMR-GJF (D.N.M., July 8, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from SMS under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. SMS employed Hart as one of its Straight Time Workers. SMS pays Hart and the other Straight Time Workers by the hour. Hart and the other Straight Time Workers regularly work more than 40 hours but SMS does not pay Hart and its other Straight Time Workers required premium overtime wages. Instead, SMS pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek (SMS's "straight time for overtime pay scheme), the suit contends. The putative FLSA collective is defined as: All employees SMS paid under its straight time for overtime pay scheme during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action. The putative NMMWA class of similarly situated employees is defined as: All employees in New Mexico who SMS paid under its straight time for overtime pay scheme at any time. SMS touts itself as program management company with more than 400 professional staff with experience across government and industrial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STUBHUB HOLDINGS: CEO Faces Class Action Over Mass Ticket Scalping ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Seglins, Kathleen Coughlin, Ariel Tozman of CBC News report that StubHub and its CEO, Eric Baker, have been hit with a proposed $5-million class-action lawsuit in the United States over the company's ties to large-scale scalpers -- connections reported by CBC News last week. The suit, filed Monday, July 13, by New York ticket buyer Louis Sanquini, alleges deceptive practices and fraudulent misrepresentation over StubHub's promoting itself as a "marketplace for fans to buy and sell tickets." The online ticket resale giant has faced a storm of customer complaints after cancelling thousands of World Cup tickets. The company has repeatedly said it is simply a technology platform that does not buy, sell or possess tickets. However, CBC reported last week that Baker disclosed in recent filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that he runs Andro Capital, a hedge fund that engages in large-scale resale of millions of dollars' worth of sports and concert tickets on the StubHub resale platform. Sanquini filed the proposed class action in the Southern District of New York, arguing consumers were kept in the dark and that he believed StubHub was a "neutral" marketplace. Lead counsel Kevin Steinberg told CBC News in an emailed statement that "consumers deserve honesty and transparency." "While what StubHub is alleged to have engaged in and perpetrated upon millions of patrons is unfathomable, this case is about transparency and consumer trust. If companies make representations to the public, consumers are entitled to expect that those representations are complete and accurate," he said. The claim reads: "Defendants' failure to disclose this conflict of interest, while affirmatively marketing StubHub as a fan-to-fan marketplace, deceived Plaintiff and the Class and caused them to pay prices, and accept terms, they would not have accepted had the truth been known." Sanquini argues that had he known StubHub's CEO held a financial interest and that the company was helping finance professional resellers, he would never have used the resale site to buy tickets to see rock band Kiss in 2023 or to attend a New York Red Bulls-New York City FC Major League Soccer match in 2024. A StubHub spokesperson wrote to CBC in an email: "Thank you for reaching out but we aren't going to comment on a legal matter." None of the allegations has been tested in court. World Cup cancellations draw scrutiny StubHub has faced increased scrutiny and calls for an outside investigation after cancelling thousands of World Cup ticket orders despite its "FanProtect Guarantee." Many disappointed customers say that although they were promised refunds or replacement tickets, they were shut out of World Cup matches at the last moment and left out of pocket for travel and hotel expenses, missing what some described as a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity. The situation has prompted numerous complaints to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Canada's Competition Bureau, and has sparked formal investigations by Consumer Protection B.C. and the Texas Attorney General's office. [GN] STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Misled Consumers About Ticket Marketplace ----------------------------------------------------------- LOUIS SANQUINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STUBHUB HOLDINGS, INC., ERIC H. BAKER and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of state consumer protection statutes of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants represented to consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class, that StubHub is a neutral "marketplace for fans to buy and sell tickets" and that it does not own, possess, or sell tickets. The Defendants concealed from Plaintiff and the Class the material fact that StubHub's CEO owns and manages a major seller on the platform, and that StubHub finances other large scale sellers, while having a duty to disclose such facts given their partial representations regarding the nature of the marketplace. The Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that these omissions were material and would affect a reasonable consumer's decision to purchase, or the price a reasonable consumer would pay, on the platform. The Plaintiff and the Class reasonably relied on Defendants' representations and omissions in deciding to transact on StubHub. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, including the amounts paid for tickets they would not have purchased, or would have purchased at a lower price, absent Defendants' fraudulent concealment, asserts the complaint. StubHub Holdings, Inc. operates ticketing marketplace for live event tickets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillel I. Parness, Esq. PARNESS LAW FIRM, PLLC 136 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 447-5299 E-mail: hip@hiplaw.com TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Class Certification Bid in Arbuckle Due Nov. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBUCKLE FUNDING LLC, and BRIGHTON TRUSTEES LLC, on behalf of and as Trustee for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO. and TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McCarthy entered an order -- Any further interrogatories, including expert interrogatories, shall be served no later than Sept. 22, 2026. -- Requests to admit, if any, shall be served no later than Sept. 22, 2026. -- Arbuckle's expert reports shall be served no later than March 16, 2026. -- Talcott's expert reports shall be served no later than July 27, 2026. -- Arbuckle's reply expert reports shall be served no later than Sept. 18, 2026. -- Expert depositions shall be completed by Nov. 20, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Nov. 20, 2026. -- Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 24, 2026. -- Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Jan. 31, 2027. Talcott can also simultaneously file any applicable Daubert motions relevant to the expert reports supporting class certification. -- Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 22, 2027. Talcott Resolution is a life insurance and annuity company and solutions-provider. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pv4Ww6 at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Sued Over Dog, Cat Foods' Artificial Preservatives --------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Target faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the retailer's Kindfull dry dog and cat foods are misbranded as free from artificial preservatives, given that the products contain synthetic citric acid and mixed tocopherols. The 21-page Target class action lawsuit says that despite prominent representations on product packaging touting the Kindfull dog and cat foods as containing no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives, the citric acid and mixed tocopherols in the products are both artificial preservatives. Virtually all citric acid found in commercial food in the United States is produced through industrial manufacturing, the suit argues. Moreover, the tocopherols, fat-soluble compounds that have antioxidant properties, are "intentionally introduced" to the Kindfull items to extend shelf life and freshness, the complaint states. According to the suit, the mislabeled Target Kindfull dog and cat food varieties include: -- Cat Food; -- Adult Indoor Cat Food; -- All Life Stages Cat Food; -- Kitten Food; -- Dog Food; -- All Life Stages Dog Food; -- Small Breed Dog Food; and -- Puppy Food. Per the case, the citric acid in the Kindfull products is decidedly artificial in that it is not extracted from fruit or any natural material but instead made from "industrial feedstocks using fermentation and chemical processing." "Reasonable consumers would not understand ingredients derived from these processes as 'natural' or 'not artificial,'" the complaint reads. Similarly, the mixed tocopherol preparations such as those in the Kindfull items do not exist as "incidental constituents" of whole foods but rather are intentionally added as "preservative systems" to maintain freshness and prevent rancidity, the suit continues. In fact, Target confirms in the Kindfull pet foods' ingredients panels that the mixed tocopherols are used to preserve chicken fats, the lawsuit says. "Commercial mixed-tocopherol preparations such as those used in the Products are not the same thing as tocopherols naturally occurring in whole-food ingredients or even extracted from natural sources," the filing reads. "They are concentrated ingredient systems separately manufactured, supplied, and added to foods for functional purposes." Per the case, components of the mixed tocopherols in the Kindfull products are chemically synthesized from petrochemical sources and "cannot be labeled as 'natural'" without accompanying disclaimers. The Kindfull lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in California who purchased any of the Kindfull dog and cat food varieties listed on this page within the last four years. [GN] TIDWELL POWER: Flores Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO FLORES JR., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TIDWELL POWER CORP., a California corporation; TIDWELL EXCAVATION, an entity of unknown form; MERUELO ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21570 (Cal. Super., July 9, 2026) is a class action complaint for the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and during the time period relevant to this complaint was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within the State of California at Defendants' facilities and offices in California. The Plaintiff and the other Class members worked for Defendants in Los Angeles County, and in other nonexempt positions throughout California, and consistently worked at Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as follows: all individuals employed by Defendants within the State of California at any time within four years of the filing of this lawsuit. Further, the Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Subclasses composed of and defined as follows: a. Subclass 1. Minimum Wages Subclass. All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage. b. Subclass 2. Wages and Overtime Subclass. 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. c. Subclass 3. Meal Period Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty- free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee's regular rate of pay in lieu thereof. d. Subclass 4. Rest Break Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit Employees to take uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the Employee's regular rate of pay in lieu thereof. 5. Payroll Records Subclass. All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to keep accurate time and wage records as required by California wage-and-hour laws. 6. Wage Statement Subclass. All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements. 7. Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenditures. All Class members who were subject to Defendants' failure to reimburse for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of Employees job duties for Defendants. 8. Termination Pay Subclass. 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. 9. UCL Subclass. 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. Tidwell Power Corp. is a utility and electrical construction company operating throughout Central and Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Mason Doidge, 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 m.doidge@d.law TK TRADING: Faces Lopez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TK TRADING COMPANY, GBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05642 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.stormcreek.com contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. TK Trading Company, GBC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TOTAL VISION: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $475,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Total Vision has agreed to a $475,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the eye care provider failed to protect the sensitive information of patients and others from an October 2020 data breach. The $475,000 Total Vision class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 5, 2026. The deal covers all California residents to whom Total Vision sent a direct mail notice of a data breach that occurred on October 30, 2020. Court documents estimate that 88,722 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the Total Vision settlement can be found at TotalVisionSettlement.com. Total Vision settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $1,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data breach. This benefit covers losses caused by identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, credit freezes, replacement IDs, bank fees, and more. Class members must submit proof, such as bank statements or receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. Additionally, class members can submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment from the class action settlement fund, with no proof required. All claims for documented-loss payouts must be printed from the settlement website, completed, and submitted by mail. Claim forms for documented losses will not be accepted online. Class members who wish to file a claim form for a pro rata cash payment may file their claim online. To submit a Total Vision settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter their last name and the ILYM ID and claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Total Vision settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by October 5, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Total Vision settlement final approval following a hearing on December 18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Total Vision class action lawsuit alleged that the California-based eye care provider failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information pertaining to patients and others from a data breach on October 30, 2020. Per court documents, confidential information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and prescription information. [GN] TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Website Tracking Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Hillel Aron, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Toyota was hit with a "trap and trace" class action, over what the plaintiff calls an "outrageous privacy 'bait and switch' scheme." In a class action filed Wednesday, July 15, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, lead plaintiff Brittany Conner claims the Japanese automaker "secretly tracks, de-anonymizes and sells visitors' personnel information before a user can provide legally valid consent." When one goes to Toyota.com, he or she is greeted by a consent banner informing the visitor its websites use cookies and similar tracking technologies to enhance the user's experience. The now familiar warning comes along with two buttons, "accept" and "decline." "Those tracking cookies enable the third parties to de-anonymize and track users' online activities such as their browsing history, visit history, website interactions, user input data, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers and geolocation data," Conner says in the complaint. Conner says she visited the Toyota website several times over the last few years, and "elected to reject all third-party cookies." She says that the publicly traded company, founded in 1937, "nonetheless secretly installed tracking technology on plaintiff's device" and caused her to be "tracked and surveilled while using the internet." The so-called "spyware," Conner says in the complaint, "is used for advertising to consumers across devices, where a user is shown an ad on their mobile or tablet device based on websites they listed on a desktop." She adds: "The spyware activities . . . are known as 'fingerprinting.' Put simply the spyware collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the website and matches it with existing data acquired and acclimated about hundreds of millions of Americans to identify the user and tailor marketing and advertising." She is represented by Scott Ferrell and Victoria Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys in Newport Beach, California. They did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The class action is only the latest in a wave of recent litigation under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA, a 1967 law aimed at banning wiretaps and hidden recording equipment. In the 2020s, plaintiffs began using CIPA to sue over website tracking. According to OneTrust, a software company that helps businesses comply with privacy laws, more than 800 CIPA claims were filed in 2025 alone. In May, ForbesMedia agreed to pay $10 million to settle a "trap and trace" class action. The Los Angeles Times agreed to settle a similar lawsuit for $3.85 million. In recent month, DraftKings and the NFL were hit with website tracking lawsuits. Toyota spokespeople did not return an email requesting a comment on the class action. [GN] TRACTOR SUPPLY: Harrison Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA L. HARRISON KEESLER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00715 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following classes and for the following relief: Statutory Violation Class (Counts I and II): "All persons within the United States who paid Tractor Supply's tobacco surcharge from Sept. 23, 2020, through the date of the class certification order"; Plan Terms Violation Class (Counts V and VI): "All persons within the United States who paid Tractor Supply's tobacco surcharge from Jan. 1, 2017, through the date of the class certification order"; Individual Fiduciary Duty Class (Count IV): "All persons within the United States who paid Tractor Supply's tobacco surcharge from Sept. 23, 2018, through the date of the class certification order"; Plan Fiduciary Duty Class (Count III): "All persons within the United States who paid Tractor Supply's tobacco surcharge from Sept. 23, 2018, through the date of the class certification order." The Plaintiff also moves this Court for an order appointing her as class representatives and appointing Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, McClelland Law Firm, P.C., and Yezbak Law Offices PLLP as Class Counsel. The Defendant is the source for farm supplies, pet and animal feed and supplies, clothing, tools, fencing, and so much more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZHuJVE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@steuvesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com - and - Charles Yezbak, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Ave. Nashville, TN 37204 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Bid for Clarification Dismissed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY M. LAMB, v. G.D.C. COMM. TYRONE OLIVER, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01072-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Boulee entered an order dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion for clarification. Furthermore, because the Court previously denied the motion to certify class, Isley's motion to join is denied as moot. This case shall remain closed. This action was transferred to the Middle District of Georgia on March 11, 2026. Thereafter, the Middle District of Georgia transferred the matter back to this Court, and a new civil action number was assigned, 1:26-CV-2816-JPB. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qtft70 at no extra charge.[CC] UNION CARBIDE: Final Settlement Conference Set for Jan. 11, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE ANN SOMMERVILLE, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00878 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Goodwin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to modify eighth amended scheduling order. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadlines for responses and replies, the motion is granted for good cause shown. In all other respects, the Motion is denied. The court orders that the case proceed as follows: Refiling of motions denied without July 20, 2026 prejudice by this Order: Supplemental briefing on the Plaintiff's July 17, 2026 motion to certify class: Filing of dispositive motions: July 24, 2026 Settlement meeting deadline: Sept. 14, 2026 Filing of motions in limine: Oct. 5, 2026 Final settlement conference: Jan. 11, 2027 at 9:00 AM Trial: Jan. 12, 2027 at 8:30 AM The court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. Union is a manufacturer of chemicals, petrochemicals, and related products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T9Sueh at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks Stay of Briefing on Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RODGERS, ASAAD ABRAH RAHAMA, and those similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-03971-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification until the Court resolves the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Defendant has moved to dismiss this case, on the ground that the claims rest on a legally flawed theory, and resolution of that motion in the Defendant's favor would result in full dismissal. Staying briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is in the interests of justice. Doing so would avoid major— and potentially unnecessary—burdens on judicial and party resources, and any prejudice to the Plaintiffs or putative opt-in plaintiffs is minimal. The Plaintiffs claim, the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and particularly the "timely payment" provision, by requiring the Plaintiffs and other Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") employees to perform excepted work without pay for that work on their regularly scheduled pay dates. The Defendant is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal capital district, Washington, D.C. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIPtYZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Peter Mcneilly, Esq. Leslie Schulze, Esq. Julia M. Prochazka, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1801 California Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0100 E-mail: Leslie.Schulze@usdoj.gov Julia.Prochazka@usdoj.gov UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Estate Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE OF MILLARD M. BRAUNSTEIN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Estate of Millard M. Braunstein, by and through its executor, Elliot Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-15991, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey, is brought against the Defendant for alleged breach of insurance contract. On Nov. 18, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which Judge Karen M. Williams granted on June 8, 2026. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Estate of Millard M Braunstein v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Case No. 26-2593, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Estate of Millard M. Braunstein, by and through its executor, Elliot Braunstein, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al. are represented by: Robert J. Norcia, Esq. Ethan M. Scapellati, Esq. STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG 2005 Market Street One Commerce Square, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8663 (215) 564-8587 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that the University of St. Thomas (UST) has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the private Catholic institution failed to protect sensitive information in its care from a 2025 data breach. The University of St. Thomas class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 28, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents who were mailed a letter by the University of St. Thomas stating that their personal information was potentially compromised as a result of the data breach that occurred between July 25, 2025 and August 12, 2025. The court-approved website for the University of St. Thomas class action settlement can be found at USTDataSettlement.com. University of St. Thomas settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $500 for documented "ordinary" losses incurred between July 25, 2025 and September 28, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers out-of-pocket costs for professional fees, credit repair services, freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring, notary fees, fax, postage, mileage, long-distance telephone charges, and more. Class members can also file a claim form to receive up to $4,500 for documented "extraordinary" losses incurred between July 25, 2025 and September 28, 2026 due to the University of St. Thomas data breach. This benefit covers losses from identity theft or fraud that are not already covered by another settlement benefit. All settlement class members who experienced the disclosure of their sensitive personal information -- such as employment files and records, reports of professional or criminal misconduct, settlement agreements or other information pertaining to legal proceedings, and disciplinary records -- because of the UST data incident can also claim a $100 cash payment with supporting documentation. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, bank statements or other third-party documentation, to receive documented-loss payments from the class action settlement. Further, class members can elect on their claim form to enroll in three years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, which includes identity theft insurance. In lieu of documented-loss payments and/or credit monitoring, class members can file a claim form for a $50 alternative cash payment, with no proof required. To submit a University of St. Thomas settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All UST settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 28, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the University of St. Thomas settlement final approval following a yet-to-be-scheduled hearing. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The University of St. Thomas class action lawsuit alleged that the private Catholic university failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect private information from a data breach that occurred between July 25 and August 12, 2025. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach included credit card, bank account, and Social Security numbers; passports and licenses; logins and passwords to work-related accounts; home addresses; email addresses; phone numbers; donor contact information; club membership information; and other documents of a confidential and sensitive nature. [GN] VALOR TECHNICAL: Schwartz Suit Seeks Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SCHWARTZ and JAMES JONES, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. VALOR TECHNICAL CLEANING, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00673-PAB-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The Plaintiffs request that the Court approve the stipulated notice of collective action lawsuit and stipulated consent to join forms, attached hereto as Exhibit 1-A, to be sent to: "current and former non-Ohio-based Technicians and Technician Trainees who worked for Defendant between Feb. 19, 2023 and the date this Stipulation is filed (FLSA Collective)." On Feb. 19, 2026, the Plaintiff Taylor Schwartz and James Jones filed their Class and Collective Action Complaint, alleging claims under the FLSA and certain state laws. Valor provides professional crime scene and biohazard cleanup services nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kcboai at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble. VANDALIA RENTAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of reports of a possible Vandalia Rental data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been put at risk, including current and former Vandalia Rental customers and employees. Reports Emerge of Possible Vandalia Rental Security Breach Vandalia Rental, a construction equipment rental company serving customers in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, may have suffered a data breach. A July 10, 2026 post on cybersecurity platform HookPhish indicates that threat actor Akira has taken responsibility for the suspected cyberattack, which reportedly occurred on the same day the HookPhish post was published. According to HookPhish’s findings, Akira claims to have stolen 40 GB of corporate data, including employee and client Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, and more. At the time this post was made, reports of a possible Vandalia Rental data breach remained unconfirmed by the company. What You Can Do If you're affiliated with Vandalia Rental and suspect your information could have been put at risk, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Vandalia Rental to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Stichting Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS METAAL EN TECHNIEK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal En Techniek, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05218-ESK-AMD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Security Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5. On Apr. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on same day. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Apr. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 16, 2025. On May 29, 2026, Judge Kiel entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal En Techniek, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 26-2628, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS METAAL EN TECHNIEK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrbe.com - and - Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. David A. Bocian, Esq. Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: jdancona@ktmc.com dbocian@ktmc.com nsimon@ktmc.com - and - Karin E. Fisch, Esq. Mica A. Cocco, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER PA 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 Email: kfisch@gelaw.com mcocco@gelaw.com VERTOL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANET DOE, PABLO DOE, and JESUS DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VERTOL SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-11550-ADB (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), a class of: "All immigrants who, not at the time being citizens of the United States, were flown from San Antonio, Texas to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts by Vertol, its agents or anyone acting on Vertol's behalf on Sept. 14, 2022, excluding from such class any officials, employees, or contractors of Vertol and/or the State of Florida and its instrumentalities who were on such flights." The Plaintiffs further move for the Court to appoint Yanet Doe, Pablo Doe, and Jesus Doe as representatives of that class, and to appoint Foley Hoag LLP and Lawyers for Civil Rights as class counsel. Vertol provides help supply and personnel supply services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uFZJqw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth S. Leonetti, Esq. Madeleine K. Rodriguez, Esq. Matthew E. Miller, Esq. Rachel L. Kerner, Esq. Zoe T. Sun, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 832-1000 E-mail: ksl@foleyhoag.com mrodriguez@foleyhoag.com mmiller@foleyhoag.com rkerner@foleyhoag.com zsun@foleyhoag.com - and - Oren Sellstrom, Esq. Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. Mirian Albert, Esq. LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 61 Batterymarch Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-1145 E-mail: osellstrom@lawyersforcivilrights.org VF OUTDOOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Beltran Due Oct. 12, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BELTRAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 4:26-cv-02245-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the stipulation regarding the briefing schedule for VF Outdoor's motion to dismiss and class certification schedule as follows: A. Motion to Dismiss Briefing Schedule 1. VF Outdoor shall file its motion to dismiss no later than July 22, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than Aug. 21, 2026. 3. Hearing on the motion to dismiss: Sept. 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., or the next available Thursday on which civil motions will be heard. B. Class Certification Briefing Schedule 4. The Parties further stipulate and agree to the following class certification briefing schedule: Event Date Fact discovery cutoff: May 12, 2027 Class certification expert July 12, 2027 disclosures (Moving Party): Class certification expert discovery Oct. 12, 2027 cutoff: Class certification motion filed: Oct. 12, 2027 Opposition to class certification Nov. 22, 2027 motion: Reply in support of class Dec. 13, 2027 certification motion: Hearing on class certification Jan.6, 2028 motion: This stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order. VF manufactures men's and boy's clothing. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mkoyBr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com isabelm@potterhandy.com naomib@potterhandy.com classactions@potterhandy.com The Defendants are represented by: Tara Shinall, Esq. Hayden M. Schottlaender, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11452 El Camino Real, Ste 300 San Diego, CA 92130-2080 Telephone: (858) 720-5700 Facsimile: (858) 720-5799 E-mail: TShinall@perkinscoie.com HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com VF OUTDOOR: Class Cert Bid in Beltran Suit Due June 4, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BELTRAN, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-02245-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Defendant to file July 22, 2026 motion to dismiss: Amendment of pleadings/joinder: Aug. 31, 2026 Close of fact discovery: Feb. 5, 2027 Close of expert discovery: May 7, 2027 Class certification filing deadline: June 4, 2027 Opposition to motion for class July 2, 2027 Certification: Reply in support of motion for class July 23, 2027 Certification: Class certification hearing: Aug. 12, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. In light of the parties' proposal, the Court further clarifies that the Court is not bifurcating discovery in this case. The parties are directed to meet and confer about the timing and form of ADR in light of this schedule. If they are able to reach an agreement, the parties may refile the standard ADR form, Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting ADR Process. The parties shall file any stipulation by July 17, 2026. This terminates Dkt. Nos. 25 and 29. VF manufactures men's and boy's clothing. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IhNLDL at no extra charge.[CC] VISION OF HOPE: Miller Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSANNA MILLER AND FAITH RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC. AND FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00033-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: A) Certifying a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; B) Appointing the named Plaintiffs as the class representatives; and C) Appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel. The case arises from the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants obtained the forced labor of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated by the threat of serious harm, including threats of serious psychological, reputational, and even physical harm. Certification of this class action will ensure that all similarly situated individuals receive appropriate relief for their forced labor elicited from the Plaintiffs and proposed members of the class through threats of serious harm. Vision of Hope provides humanitarian aid. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IcIx4K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason R. Ramsland, Esq. RAMSLAND LAW LLC 38 W. Main Street, Suite 124 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (765) 267-1240 E-mail: jason@rams.land W.W. GRAINGER: Faces Yeager Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. -------------------------------------------------------- ANTWON YEAGER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08604 (D.N.J., July 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the NJWHL by failing to pay Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class statutory overtime compensation in weeks when they worked 40 or more hours per week, for time spent undergoing security screening and walking within Defendant's distribution center. The Defendant also failed to pay the full amount of wages earned by Plaintiff and similarly situated workers, as Defendant does not pay for time that employees spend undergoing work and as required by the state law, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a distribution center worker in approximately 2021 to 2023. She worked at the distribution center located in Bordentown, New Jersey. W.W. Grainger, Inc. is a distributor of maintenance, repair, and operating supplies, equipment, and tools, serving customers globally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krysten Connon, Esq. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Lawrence Lederer, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: llederer@baileyglasser.com WALT DISNEY: $50MM Settlement Deadline for Exclusion Set Dec. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Disney agreed to pay $50 million as part of a partial class action settlement to resolve claims that it violated federal antitrust laws by raising the price of live TV subscriptions, such as YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. The Disney settlement benefits individuals who purchased a YouTube TV subscription or a DirecTV streaming live pay TV subscription (DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now and AT&T TV Now) between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2026. According to the antitrust class action lawsuit, Disney violated federal antitrust laws by working with other companies to raise the price of live TV subscriptions. As a result, consumers allegedly paid higher prices for services such as YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream. Disney is a media company that owns ESPN, ABC, Hulu, Disney+ and other networks. Disney has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $50 million class action settlement to resolve the antitrust lawsuit. Under the terms of the Disney settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the length of their subscription. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. No payment estimates are available at this time. In addition to providing cash benefits, Disney agreed to make changes to its business practices to ensure compliance with federal antitrust laws. These changes will benefit consumers by ensuring they are not overcharged for live TV subscriptions. The deadline for exclusion is Sept. 8, 2026. The deadline for objection is Dec. 1, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Disney antitrust lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2027. To receive a payment from the class action settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 8, 2026. Who's Eligible YouTube TV class: Anyone who purchased a YouTube TV subscription from April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2026. DirecTV Stream class: Anyone who purchased a DirecTV streaming live pay TV subscription from April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2026. This includes DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now and AT&T TV Now subscriptions. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase YouTube TV and/or DirecTV Stream account information, including account number and the phone number or email address associated with the account Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 09/08/2026 Case Name Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-07317-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 01/14/2027 Settlement Website OnlineTVSettlement.com Claims Administrator Biddle v. Disney Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4720 Portland, OR 97208-4720 info@OnlineTVSettlement.com (877) 704-2517 Class Counsel Yavar Bathaee BATHAEE DUNNE LLP Defense Counsel Daniel M. Petrocelli O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP [GN] WALTER KIDDE: Caro Files Fraud Suit in M.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as CHRIS CARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-01437-CEM-NWH (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud claim. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products, headquartered in North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dayron Silverio, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 830 Brickell Plaza Miami, FL 33131 Email: dayron.silverio@kirkland.com WASHINGTON POST: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of The Washington Post data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of The Washington Post data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. The Washington Post Security Incident: What Happened? The Washington Post, a major print and digital newspaper company based in Washington, D.C., has reported a data breach involving sensitive information. According to a sample notification letter, the breach was first discovered in October 2025 when a threat actor contacted the newspaper, claiming to have gained access to its Oracle E-Business Suite applications. An investigation confirmed that Oracle's E-Business Suite software was impacted by a vulnerability that permitted unauthorized access to many Oracle customers' data. It was determined that data in The Washington Post's Oracle environment was subject to unauthorized access and acquisition between July 10 and August 22, 2025. Following a preliminary analysis, a deeper review of the data affected in the Washington Post data breach was completed on June 10, 2026. Reports submitted to the Illinois, Texas, and Vermont Attorney General's Offices indicate that names, Social Security numbers, financial account information or numbers, credit and debit account information, passport information or numbers, government-issued ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance information were among the data potentially exposed. What You Can Do After The Washington Post Data Breach If your information was exposed in The Washington Post data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force The Washington Post to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] WAYNE SCOTT: Bid for Class Certification in Duvall Suit Due Oct. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duvall v. Scott, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04160 (W.D. Mo., Filed Aug. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting joint motion to alter scheduling order as follows. The discovery shall close on September 18, 2026. The Plaintiff's Motion for class certification shall be filed on or before October 19, 2026; The Defendants' oppositions shall be filed on or before November 18, 2026; The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before December 9, 2026. The Plaintiff's initial expert disclosures shall be filed 45 days after the class certification decision and Defendants' disclosures shall be due 35 filed after Plaintiff's disclosures. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] WEX INC: Faces Kemp Class Suit Over Unlawful Processing Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA KEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEX, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-08059 (N.D. Ill., July 9, 2026) seeks monetary damages, restitution and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant, which includes a division called WEX Health, pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). COBRA is a federal law that allows workers and their family members to temporarily continue their group health coverage for a limited period of time after losing their health coverage due to certain qualifying and often challenging life events, such as job termination, reduced hours, death of the covered employee, divorce or legal separation. The action concerns the unlawful, unfair and deceptive assessment of a uniform $20 "Online Payment Processing Fee" (OPP Fee), which is nothing more than a junk fee that WEX charges to individuals who pay for their healthcare benefits through WEX's online payment portal and who are desperate to keep their healthcare coverage. Plaintiff Kemp resides in Round Lake, Illinois and is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. 6 WEX is a third-party administrator that allows companies to outsource their benefits administration for COBRA coverage and payment processing. WEX is headquartered in Portland, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Soffin, Esq. Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 205-2815 E-mail: rsoffin@pwfirm.com mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com WHALECO INC: Faces New Class Action Over Deceptive Emails --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Whaleco Inc., doing business as Temu. Why: The plaintiff claims Temu illegally spams consumers with deceptive emails that violate California privacy laws. Where: The Temu spam class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Temu violated California privacy laws by sending spam emails with deceptive subject lines and fake domains. Plaintiff Dallas Pottish filed the class action complaint against Whaleco Inc., doing business as Temu, in California federal court, alleging violations of state privacy laws. Temu is a global online retailer operating a direct-from-source business model. According to the complaint, Temu has been sending spam emails to California consumers with misleading subject lines, forged headers and spoofed domains. The emails trick recipients into opening them and visiting Temu's website, where the company allegedly installs illegal tracking pixels on their devices. "Defendant is the definition of a company that profits from modern spam abuse," Pottish says. The class action lawsuit alleges Temu's spam emails violate California's anti-spam law, which prohibits the use of falsified or misleading information in commercial emails. The law imposes strict liability on advertisers who benefit from deceptive emails, regardless of whether they sent the emails themselves. Temu spam emails advertised products that did not exist, lawsuit claims Pottish claims Temu's emails use fake domains that have no connection to the company, such as privaterelay.appleid.com, to obscure the sender's identity and make the emails appear legitimate. The emails use both deceptive headers and subject lines that mislead recipients about the nature of the offer, the Temu class action lawsuit says. For example, one email had the subject line "$0.01 False Nails - Ends Soon," suggesting a limited-time sale, but when Pottish clicked on the link, he found no such product was available for that price, the lawsuit claims. Pottish says he would not have opened the email or visited Temu's website if the email had not contained falsified and misleading information. After Pottish visited Temu's website, he says the company installed tracking pixels on his device that allowed it to monitor his online activity and collect personal data without his consent. The tracking pixels allegedly enabled Temu and its partners to follow Pottish's behavior across the internet and use his data for targeted advertising. The class action lawsuit alleges Temu's use of tracking pixels violates California's Trap and Trace Law, which requires companies to obtain a court order before installing devices that capture routing or signaling information from electronic communications. Pottish seeks to represent a class of all California citizens who received spam emails from Temu with falsified or misleading information or who visited Temu's website and had their data collected without consent. The class action lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $1,000 per spam email as well as punitive damages and injunctive relief. In another legal action against Temu, a New York federal judge ordered plaintiffs to arbitrate claims of privacy violations against Temu, ruling that the arbitration agreement in Temu's terms is valid and enforceable. Pottish is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys. The Temu class action lawsuit is Pottish v. Whaleco Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-05657, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Drexler Class Suit Over Mass Layoff --------------------------------------------------------- HARMON DREXLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-00155 (N.D. Iowa, July 8, 2026) is a class action, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers to recover the wages and benefits owed to such workers who were terminated without receiving sixty days' advance written notice in accordance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. On March 7, 2026, Whirlpool fired approximately 341 employees from its refrigerator manufacturing facility located at 2800 220th Trail, Amana, Iowa, without providing 60 days' advance written notice as required under WARN Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of Whirlpool until he was terminated as part of, or as a result of, a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Whirlpool without the required statutory notice. In February 2026, Whirlpool announced that it would permanently shut down Assembly Line 4 at the Amana Facility and terminate the employees who worked there. The shutdown began taking effect on or about March 7, 2026, and was finalized on March 9, 2026. Whirlpool gave its employees, including Plaintiff, approximately twelve days' written notice of their terminations—short of the sixty days the WARN Act requires. Whirlpool's own public statements foreclose any contention that the shutdown was unforeseeable. In a letter to Members of Congress dated March 5, 2026, Whirlpool's Chief Executive Officer described the layoffs as part of a "multi-year modernization plan that will continue to transform and invest in the plant's operations," a plan under which Whirlpool laid off approximately 250 workers at the same facility in 2025. And on or about June 4, 2026, announcing the layoff of 288 additional employees, Whirlpool publicly confirmed that it "is undergoing a multi-year modernization plan" that was "announced in February,” of which the new layoffs are "the necessary next steps." Whirlpool is a company that manufactures and sells home appliances. One of the manufacturing facilities that Whirlpool operates is the Amana facility. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Galligan, Esq. GALLIGAN LAW P.C. 13375 University Ave., Ste. 302 Clive, IA 50325 Telephone: (515) 395-5065 Facsimile: (515) 282-0318 - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. Rammy Allouche, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com rallouche@fotylawgroup.com WICKED TACO: Gonzalez Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE R GONZALEZ, ANTONIO LAMAR, CARLY ZINCONE, HECTOR VENTURA, JOSE NOEL OSORIO MEJIA, AND JUAN FRANCISCO MARTINEZ MEJIA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. WICKED TACO LLC d/b/a BONGO BURRITO, NDL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a CHARRED BRICK OVEN, f/d/b/a LOBSTER SHACK, D & L RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a/ PUGLIAS and GREGORY GAROFALO, Case No. 1:23-cv-09555-NCM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marutollo entered a recommendation that the Court: (1) grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; (2) grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment; and (3) grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. But even where the undersigned recommends granting any portions of the aforementioned motions, the Court repeats Lincoln's adage: these nominal wins cover real losses -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. Accordingly, the undersigned that the Court find that the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied. The Plaintiffs, on their NYLL claims, request certification of a class consisting of: "All current and former non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house employees (including hosts, waiters, servers, bartenders, barbacks, food runners, bussers, delivery persons, cooks, dishwashers, food preparers, and porters, among others) employed by the Defendants at any of the Restaurants in New York on or after Dec. 28, 2017, which is six years before the filing of the Complaint." The undersigned recommends that the Court certify three subclasses: a. BOH Fixed Pay Subclass: "All non-exempt back-of-house workers who were employed or are currently employed at Bongo Burrito and/or Charred, who were paid a fixed daily or weekly amount between Dec. 28, 2017 and the date that the subclass is certified, as to the NYLL unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours premium claims"; b. BOH Hourly Subclass: "All non-exempt back-of-house workers who were employed or are currently employed at Bongo Burrito and/or Charred, who were paid on an hourly basis between Dec. 28, 2017 and the date that the subclass is certified, as to the NYLL time-shaving and spread-of-hours premium claims"; and c. FOH Tipped Subclass: "All non-exempt front-of-house workers who were employed or are currently employed at Bongo Burrito and/or Charred, who were paid on an hourly basis pursuant to a tip credit between Dec. 28, 2017 and the date that the subclass is certified, as to the NYLL minimum wage claims." Bongo Burrito is a Mexican-style restaurant. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sey5XP at no extra charge.[CC] WILMER CUTLER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that large U.S. law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP has been sued in federal court in Washington over a data breach that allegedly exposed sensitive personal data in a cyberattack earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, July 14, alleges the prominent firm failed to protect personally identifiable information on its network, including names and Social Security numbers. The plaintiff, Nevada resident Jason Perry, said he was suing on behalf of himself "and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack." In a statement, WilmerHale said "an unauthorized third party that has been targeting firms across the legal industry recently obtained a limited set of information ⁠from the firm." It said a review showed the incident was isolated, that no internal data was misused or disseminated, and that "the third party did not directly access the firm's systems or network." "We regret this incident occurred and are continuing to enhance our security posture in response to the evolving threat landscape," the firm said. Perry said he received a notice from the law firm that his private information was involved in the breach. The lawsuit did not describe Perry's relationship with WilmerHale, which employs more than 1,100 lawyers in offices in the United States and Europe. The lawsuit said Perry and others "were required to provide their private information to defendant in order to receive services." A lawyer for Perry, Laura Van Note, in a statement said "while every large data breach is serious, ⁠for a global law firm like Wilmer Hale to have poor data security is particularly shocking." Van Note said the size of the intrusion has not been made public but that the "breach was reported by the firm in multiple states." Law firms have increasingly become targets in cyberattacks. Other recent data-related lawsuits were filed against law firms including Wiley Rein, Fox Rothschild and Blank Rome. The complaint alleges WilmerHale's network was breached in May. It ⁠did not identify the hackers or specify how the alleged intrusion occurred, stating only that one or more unauthorized third parties accessed class members' private data. A notice on the Vermont attorney general's office data breach notice website shows a July 10 listing from WilmerHale. The notice said ⁠a breach affected 11 Vermont residents. Perry's lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and improved data-security measures. The case is Jason Perry v. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 1:26-cv-02470. For plaintiff: Laura Grace Van Note of Cole & Van ⁠Note, and David Wise of Wise Law Firm For defendant: No appearance yet [GN] WWEX FRANCHISE: Zishka Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PETER ZISHKA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Peter Zishka, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WWEX Franchise Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02312-HLT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for sex, age, and disability discrimination, as well as retaliation. On Jan. 20, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Holly L. Teeter granted on May 28, 2026. The Court finds that Zishka has failed to come forward with evidence that establishes a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation. And, even to the extent he could make a prima facie case, he has not come forward with evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the otherwise legitimate grounds for his termination were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Zishka has also conceded his implied-contract claim. The Court therefore enters summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims. The appellate case is styled as Zishka, et al. v. WWEX Franchise Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-3139, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PETER ZISHKA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aaron Hadlow, Esq. Edward Keenan, Esq. Chloe Liederman, Esq. James R. Montgomery, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Defendants-Appellees WWEX FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Ashanti Carey, Esq. DOWD BENNETT 7676 Forsyth, Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7302 - and - William C. Martucci, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 YELLOW CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Today reports that bankrupt trucking company Yellow Corp. failed to protect the personal and health information of nearly 259,000 former employees in a March 2025 data breach, a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges. Lamker v. Yellow Corp., No. 26-cv-2404, complaint filed (D. Kan. July 13, 2026). Former Yellow Corp. employee Darrell Lamker filed the suit July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging the company was negligent in safeguarding the data and rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. Kansas-based Yellow, once one of the largest less-than-truckload carriers in the U.S., shut down and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August 2023 amid disputes with its union and mounting debt. The company has since liquidated its assets, but Lamker alleges it failed to protect former employees' sensitive data that it continued to store. According to the complaint, Yellow was hacked in March 2025, but did not begin notifying government entities and affected class members until more than a year later, on June 26. This deprived victims of the opportunity to mitigate their injuries in a timely manner, the suit alleges. Yellow retained employee data including names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, financial account and payment card numbers, medical information, and health insurance, but what specific information was exposed has not been divulged, the suit says. Lamker, a Yellow employee for 37 years, says that since the data breach, he has experienced a spike in spam and scam phone calls. He alleges that Yellow failed to implement industry-standard cybersecurity measures, disregarded Federal Trade Commission guidelines, and violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The suit asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of an implied contract, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. Lamker, represented by Maureen M. Brady of McShane & Brady LLC, seeks damages on behalf of a nationwide class of all those whose information was compromised. [GN] YELLOW CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Lamker Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL LAMKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. YELLOW CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02404-HLT-GEB (D. Kan., July 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information -- about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII/PHI, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a victim of Data Breach, and he brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The Defendant is a holding company operating logistics and truckload networks in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. McSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.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 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com YONKERS, NY: Taylor Seeks Summary Judgment on Individual Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Taylor, et al. v. The City of Yonkers, et al., Case No. 7:25-cv-05861-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order grating motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' individual claims prior to class discovery and class certification. In light of that anticipated motion, the parties did not propose deadlines for class discovery or class certification in the revised schedule that was so ordered by the Court. While Plaintiffs are amenable to addressing individual summary judgment issues first, the present schedule does not include any framework governing class certification proceedings. Given Rule 23’s requirement that certification be resolved "at an early practicable time," Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order providing guidance on the sequencing and timing of class-related proceedings. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court: If the Court is amenable to Defendant's proposed sequencing of individual claims followed by class claims, issue an order stating that sequence of proceedings that following the completion of individual discovery on Plaintiffs’ individual claims and the resolution of any summary judgment motions on Plaintiffs’ individual claims, the Court will (assuming the individual claims proceed) set (a) a class discovery schedule and (b) a briefing schedule for a motion for class certification, and any other necessary deadlines; or f the Court is not amenable to handling individual claims and summary judgment motion practice before handling class certification, instead set a schedule for class certification motion practice, as well as deadlines for class discovery; note that Plaintiffs already made class-related discovery requests, which Defendants have not answered on the grounds of their proposed bifurcation of proceedings; Alternatively, if the Court prefers, schedule a case management conference with the parties to address the scope and timing of remaining class discovery and the handling of a class certification motion. The Plaintiffs believe that clarification on this issue will promote efficiency and avoid uncertainty as the parties proceed under the current schedule, particularly in light of the Court's instruction that no further extensions of the discovery schedule will be granted. City of Yonkers is located directly north of the Bronx, and serves as an inner suburb and a vital economic gateway between New York City and the scenic Hudson Valley. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=120xHY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Duston, Esq. NORRIS MCLAUGHLIN P.A. 7 Times Square, 21st Floor New York, NY Telephone: (908) 722-0700 E-mail: naduston@norris-law.com ZUMBA FITNESS: Class Cert Response Extended to July 22 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS and WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs', Catherine Kueppers, and Watanya Brown, motion for class certification. Zumba shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before July 22, 2026. Zumba provides fitness products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M85Ve6 at no extra charge.[CC] ZUMBA FITNESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE KUEPPERS and WATANYA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZUMBA FITNESS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-61983-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion for one-week extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Zumba seeks an unopposed brief one-week extension of time, through and including July 22, 2026, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Parties have diligently undertaken discovery in this case, including through the exchange of several rounds of requests, the production of hundreds of pages of documents, the service and receipt of information responsive to half a dozen non-party subpoenas, and the completion of various depositions. The Plaintiff's expert, Colin Weir's deposition is set for July 9, 2026. Accordingly, to allow for sufficient time between Mr. Weir's deposition and the current response deadline, the aforementioned extension is requested. On June 15, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Zumba provides fitness products and services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZxHCy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Barry A. Postman, Esq. Matthew A. Green, Esq. Scott A. Bassman, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 110 Tower, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone (954) 703-3700 Facsimile (954) 703-3701 E-mail: barry.postman@csklegal.com matthew.green@csklegal.com scott.bassman@csklegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***