260723.mbx

260723.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 23, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 146 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Johnson Alleges ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Morey Alleges AMAZON.COM INC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says FISKARS LIVING: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santander Says FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reynolds Says GOOGLE LLC: YouTube Premium "Ad-Free" Claims False, Flemming Says GPGI INC: City of Warren Sues Over Exorbitant Management Fees HAMILTON POLICE: McCarley Seeks OK of Court-Authorized Notice HAMMER HEAD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, North Suit Alleges HP HOOD: Seeks Continuance of Class Certification in Rubio Suit HR OF CALIFORNIA: Simmons Sues Over Illegal Parking Surveillance HYATT CORPORATION: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought JAGUAR LAND: Sumrell Sues Over Defective Hybrid eVehicles JOHN RIFE: Must Respond to Soumare's Bid to Stay by July 27 JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Benjamin Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid JOSEPH BIDEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 3 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA: Kling Seeks Conditional Status of Collective LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Kesel Tossed MDL 2873: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Contains PFAS, Suit Says MDL 2873: Camden, NJ Balks at Contaminated Drinking Water MDL 2873: Camden, NJ Sues Over Drinking Water Contamination MDL 2873: Drinking Water "Contaminated," City of Camden Claims MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barron Class Certification Bid Tossed MIKE REES: Provisional Certification of Class Action OK'd NATIONAL DCP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges NEIMAN MARCUS: Ramirez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NORTH CAROLINA: Renewed Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Due July 28 NORTH WIND: Discovery Dispute Order Entered in Smith Class Suit NORTON NATIONAL: Removes Hernandez Suit to S.D. Calif. NOWHERE HOLDCO: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind OFFICE ANYTHING.COM: Wilson Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users OMNI HOTELS: Lystad Sues Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance POST ACUTE: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Entered In Leglise PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Class Certification Bid Tossed RACK ROOM: Smith Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification RALPH LAUREN: Salazar Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd RESURGENT CAPITAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Tossed ROBLOX CORP: Police & Fire Retirement Alleges Drop in Share Price ROSS & YERGER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rideout Alleges SELENE FINANCE: Bid Certify Class in De Conto Due Nov. 5, 2027 SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Sued Over Improper Mortgage Foreclosure SMOOTHIE KING: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report STEPHEN AUSTIN: Myers Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SUNSOURCE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Holl Suit Alleges TK TRADING: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TORCHSTONE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shakhov Alleges US EXPEDITERS: Nguyen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations VIP UNIVERSAL: Responsive Deadline Extended in Reeves Class Suit VISION OF HOPE: Seeks Leave to Submit Oversized Brief in Miller VSL PHARMA: Class Settlement in Starr Suit Gets Initial Nod WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Henzel Suit Gets Initial Nod WHOOP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sanderson Suit [^] Expert Witnesses Shaping Class Action Litigation ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Johnson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBBIN JOHNSON, MICHAEL GULOTTA, and SARA LUNDBORG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly represented on behalf of the ABBOTT LABORATORIES HEALTH CARE PLAN, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08304 (N.D. IL., July 14, 2026) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint that during the class period, the Defendant offered three health insurance options: (1) the Traditional PPO, a Preferred Provider Organization ("PPO") option that required participants to pay relatively high payroll contributions and had a relatively low deductible; (2) the Health Investment Plan PPO (the "HIP PPO"), an option under which participants paid relatively low payroll contributions, had a relatively high deductible, and were eligible to receive employer contributions through a Health Savings Account ("HSA") to help offset healthcare expenses; and (3) the Surest option, which offered different coverage than the Traditional PPO and the HIP PPO. The Traditional PPO was more expensive than the HIP PPO regardless of a participant's healthcare spending, without delivering any additional benefit. A prudent fiduciary acting solely in participants' best interests would not have offered the Traditional PPO when the HIP PPO was also available. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Traditional PPO was more expensive than the HIP PPO, yet failed to act. By maintaining an imprudent and unnecessarily costly health insurance option, Defendant caused the Plan to incur excessive costs while requiring participants to pay higher amounts than they otherwise would have paid, says the suit. Abbott Laboratories discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad and diversified line of health care products and services. The Company's products include pharmaceuticals, nutritional, diagnostics, and vascular products. Abbott markets its products worldwide through affiliates and distributors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Chen Kasher, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 Email: aschlichter@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com ckasher@uselaws.com - and - Ruben R. Chapa, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 33 North Dearborn, Ste. 1170 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (630) 919-9301 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Morey Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA MOREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04743 (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf .of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and protected health information (collectively, "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, the Defendant nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. AdaptHealth, LLC operates as a full-service home medical equipment company. The Company offers ocean home health products, sleep therapy supplies, bed lifts, seat lift chairs, bath aids, CPAP machines, ventilators, and breast pumps. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com AMAZON.COM INC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DON POLISTICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04194 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased goods that Amazon sold and shipped throughout all the United States, who bore the economic burden of the President Donald Trump Administration's tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, Amazon shifted the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs to Plaintiff and other consumers throughout the United States by means of price increases on imported goods as well as U.S.-sourced goods not subject to tariffs sold and shipped by Amazon to Plaintiff. Amazon now receives -- or has the unilateral right to receive an inequitable windfall by collecting refunds from the federal government for tariff costs that were shifted to and paid by the Plaintiff and the Class, who purchased goods from and sold by Amazon, and therefore, is the real party in interest to receive the IEEPA tariff refunds. Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariffs from consumers by raising prices on imported goods and U.S.-sourced goods while the tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under IEEPA were in effect. Amazon has not returned any portion of those costs it passed on to consumers, and it has no intention of doing so. It has, in short, generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers -- not Amazon -- are the ones left paying for it, alleges the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. Amazon also operates a cloud platform offering services globally. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Rosenfeld ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Email: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 Email: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com FISKARS LIVING: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FISKARS LIVING US, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05934 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.wedgwood.com/en-us is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santander Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- XAVIER FERNANDO MEJIA SANTANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION LLC; and GREGORY T. ELLIOT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04097 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Santander was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. Formwork Construction LLC operates as a commercial contractor, and provide specialized construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Email: www.StillmanLegalPC.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reynolds Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00355-MAA (D. Ariz., July 13, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Reynolds was employed by the Defendant as a plant mechanic. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. produces metal products. The Company offers copper, carbon black, sulfate, magnetite, molybdenum, and cobalt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: akarbal@sommerspc.com GOOGLE LLC: YouTube Premium "Ad-Free" Claims False, Flemming Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM FLEMMING and DEVIN ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC and YOUTUBE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-07182 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2025) is an action alleging that YouTube Premium fails to provide the service that its members bargained for an ad-free experience with no interruptions. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, YouTube Premium does not offer an "ad-free" and "uninterrupted" experience. To the contrary, advertisements and interruptions frequently appear during streamed content, interrupting videos with commercials for everything from popular automobiles to marketing for local attorneys or dietary supplements. The Plaintiffs are YouTube Premium members who relied on YouTube's representations that Premium was "ad-free" and that it would provide video content with no interruptions. The Plaintiffs seek to put a stop to YouTube's misrepresentations and omissions and to remedy the loss of their benefit of the bargain. Google LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. The Company focuses on web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devin Bolton, Esq. James Bilsborrow, Esq. Michael Piggins, Esq. Ashley Arraras, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 1880 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 247-0921 Email: dbolton@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com mpiggins@weitzlux.com aarraras@weitzlux.com - and - Matthew W. Broughton, Esq. Andrew M. Bowman, Esq. Jared A. Tuck, Esq. GENTRY LOCKE ATTORNEYS 10 Franklin Rd. SE, Suite 900 Roanoke, VA 24011 Telephone: (540) 983-9300 Facsimile: (540) 983-9400 Email: broughton@gentrylocke.com bowman@gentrylocke.com jtuck@gentrylocke.com GPGI INC: City of Warren Sues Over Exorbitant Management Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GPGI, INC.; DAVID M. COTE; THOMAS R. KNOTT; JONATHAN C. WILK; and RESOLUTE HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05951 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of GPGI Class A common stock between November 3, 2025 and May 6, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against GPGI and certain of its officers, directors, and control persons for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a scheme to gain control of GPGI (then known as CompoSecure), which at the time was a stable company with relatively modest debt, and turn it into a highly leveraged conglomerate from which Cote, his family, and Knott could profit by extracting exorbitant management fees at the expense of GPGI shareholders. GPGI's market capitalization has shrunk by billions, notwithstanding the fact that GPGI's CompoSecure segment has reported favorable results. By contrast, defendants have profited from the Husky Acquisition, as total management fees paid by GPGI to Resolute Holdings pursuant to the Management Agreements totaled $12.9 million in the first quarter of 2026 alone -- a three-fold increase from the $4 million management fee paid by GPGI in 4Q25 before the Husky Acquisition closed. As a result of these serial disclosures, and the Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered damages under the federal securities laws, says the suit. GPGI, Inc. is a diversified, multi-industry holding company currently trading around $14.61 per share. The company, which owns businesses like CompoSecure and Husky, is facing securities fraud investigations and investor lawsuits related to a spin-off and management fee pact with Resolute Holdings Management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631)367-7100 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Richard Gonnello, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 432-5100 Email: rgonnello@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VMT LAW, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com HAMILTON POLICE: McCarley Seeks OK of Court-Authorized Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN MCCARLEY, et al., v. The City of Hamilton Police Department, Case No. 1:25-cv-00348-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for entry of an Order: 1. Approving Court-authorized notice to be sent to the proposed class: "All non-exempt sworn law enforcement officers currently or previously employed by the City of Hamilton at any time from April 22, 2022 through the present, who signed a Retention Bonus Agreement, were voluntarily or involuntarily terminated (except through a Reduction in Force (RIF) or voluntary retirement) or resigned from their position with the City of Hamilton prior to Jan. 31, 2025 and were paid less than minimum wage as a result of receiving the Retention Bonus and/or having the Retention Bonus clawed back by the Defendant." 2. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice of collective action and implementing the Plaintiff's proposed procedure for Court-approved notice of the Plaintiff's claims to be sent to the proposed class; and 3. Requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs within 21 days, by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the name, last known address, email address and dates of employment of all potential Plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant during the time period specified in the proposed class. The Defendant is a municipal police department located in Butler County, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iwRfTP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robb S. Stokar, Esq. STOKAR LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery Road Bldg E – Suite 18B Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 500-8511 E-mail: rss@stokarlaw.com - and - Zachary Gottesman, Esq. GOTTESMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 9200 Montgomery Road Building E – Unit 18B Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 651-2121 E-mail: zg@zgottesmanlaw.com HAMMER HEAD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, North Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- DEJUAN NORTH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. HAMMER HEAD SECURITY SYSTEMS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02389-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal., July 8, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff North was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. Hammer Head Security Systems LLC is a security and facilities management company that provides uniformed security and mobile patrol services, asset protection management, event security, and electronic surveillance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com HP HOOD: Seeks Continuance of Class Certification in Rubio Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP HOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03621-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their request for continuance of class certification, or in the alternative to take further briefing off calendar and set status conference. The Defendant HP HOOD LLC ("HP HOOD") requests that the Court continue HP HOOD's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification – which is currently due July 23, 2026 – to 60 days after the Court issues its ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. In the alternative, HP HOOD requests that the Court take further class certification briefing off calendar and set a status conference one (1) week after the Court's ruling on the motion for leave to amend, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). At that conference, the Parties may address the status of the case, the impact of the Court’s ruling on class certification, and, if appropriate, propose a revised briefing schedule. The Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend will materially affect the scope of the operative pleading, including the claims and defenses at issue, the proposed class definitions, and the issues relevant to class certification. A continuance will ensure that class certification proceeds based on the allegations and claims set forth in the operative pleading ultimately determined by the Court and promote judicial economy. HP Hood is an American dairy company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vv4X2X at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sander van der Heide, Esq. Tashayla Billington, Esq. Zi Xuan Chen, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 900 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 361-0991 E-mail: svanderheide@cdflaborlaw.com tbillington@cdflaborlaw.com dchen@cdflaborlaw.com HR OF CALIFORNIA: Simmons Sues Over Illegal Parking Surveillance ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HR OF CALIFORNIA, LLC; HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV198275 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 9, 2026) alleges violation of the Automated License Plate Recognition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants own, manage, and operate the Broadway-Webster Medical Plaza located at 3300 Webster Street, Oakland, California. The Defendants secretly implemented a sophisticated Automated License Plate Recognition ("ALPR") surveillance camera network operated through Metropolis (www.metropolis.io) to track and log every vehicle entering and exiting the six-story parking garage. This system automatically scans vehicle registration plates, converts them into computer-readable data, and stores them in a searchable database, creating a digital trail of every patient, visitor, and medical professional who visits the property. The Defendants have knowingly deprived Plaintiff and the Class of their statutory right to monitor, understand, and restrict the surveillance of their movements when seeking medical treatment, alleges the suit. HR of California, LLC is a subsidiary real estate and holding entity connected to Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc., a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com HYATT CORPORATION: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD ANTHONY YBARRA, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION dba HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-04101-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the stipulation to continue the deadline for filing the motion for class certification and all related deadlines as outlined in this stipulation, or a date thereafter as convenient for the Court. Given the extension to the deadlines in the Hasty related matter and the current stage of the discovery process, the Parties have now agreed to extend all class certification and discovery related deadlines by approximately 150 days. The Parties request that the Court enter an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures deadline is continued to Nov. 2, 2026; 2. The Defendant's expert disclosures deadline is continued to Dec. 28, 2026; 3. Deadline for motion for class certification is continued to Jan. 28, 2027; 4. The Defendant's opposition is continued to March 11, 2027; 5. Reply to motion for class certification is April 8, 2027. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Feb. 6, 2025, in the San Mateo Superior Court alleging various wage and hour violations against the Defendant. The Defendant removed this action to this Court on May 12, 2025. Hyatt is an American global hospitality company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGor7r at no extra charge.[CC] 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 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law a.amaya@d.law The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com JAGUAR LAND: Sumrell Sues Over Defective Hybrid eVehicles --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SUMRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-08452 (D.N.J., July 9, 2026) alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois's Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant designed, manufactured, and sold to the Plaintiff and consumers Mild Hybrid Electric Vehicles with defective DC/DC converters that can fail due to a fault in the boost control microchip (the "Defect"). A failure of the DC/DC converter can lead to complete loss of drive power and exterior lighting, increasing the risk of a crash and serious injury, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant has been aware of the existence of this defect for many years yet concealed it from unsuspecting consumers. Although the Defendant has recently admitted the existence of the Defect, it has failed to repair or replace Class Vehicles leaving drivers with unsafe vehicles in violation of state consumer protection and warranty laws, added the suit. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is the corporate headquarters for JLR in the United States and Canada, located at 100 Jaguar Land Rover Way in Mahwah, New Jersey. It manages the distribution, marketing, and customer support for luxury vehicle brands including Range Rover, Defender, Discovery, and Jaguar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com - and - William J. Pinilis, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 160 Morris Street Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 656-0222 Facsimile: (973) 401-1114 Email: wpinilis@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. Walter B. Howe, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com whowe@kaplanfox.com JOHN RIFE: Must Respond to Soumare's Bid to Stay by July 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Paul Diamond entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to two motions as follows: 1. 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. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gMHjWF at no extra charge.[CC] JONATHAN SKRMETTI: Benjamin Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY, BENJAMIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JONATHAN SKRMETTI, in his official capacity as the Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00763 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, renewed motion for preliminary injunction and class certification. The Plaintiffs have standing to challenge H.B. 1704, and the Court should grant a preliminary injunction and class certification. The Plaintiffs submit that the evidence in the record sets forth facts that are sufficient to establish that their removal orders were valid and outstanding. Because the litigation was fast-moving, discovery occurred in tandem with briefing, the Plaintiffs did not possess copies of their removal orders until after this case was filed, and the Court did not hold oral argument at which the Plaintiffs could answer the Court's questions, the Court may not have fully appreciated the implications of the previously submitted evidence. Nothing in the Plaintiffs' removal proceedings undermines the validity of their orders. Nor has anything occurred since the Plaintiffs' removal proceedings that would undermine the validity of their orders. Indeed, though Benjamin has received deferred action under DACA, this is merely a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not render his removal order invalid. Nor does Lucy's pending application under VAWA—which has not yet been approved—render her removal order invalid. In sum, the Plaintiffs have shown that their conduct is "arguably proscribed" by the statute, which is all that is required at this stage Jonathan Skrmetti is an American attorney and public official. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ejdy4m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7260 E-mail: lucas@aclu-tn.org zscout@aclu-tn.org - and - Peter McGraw, Esq. Efrén Olivares, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: mcgraw@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org - and - Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: hsteinberg@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org JOSEPH BIDEN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE et al v. BIDEN, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03317 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 20, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order on motion for extension of time to set/reset deadlines: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on August 3, 2026. The Defendants opposition is due on September 16, 2026 The Plaintiffs' reply is due on October 2, 2026. The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Administrative Procedure Act/Review.[CC] LANCASTER COUNTY, PA: Kling Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER KLING, HEATHER MOSER, JASON SNYDER, JUSTIN WIDMARK, and EMMA KREIDER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER, Case No. 5:26-cv-01528-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: a. Conditionally certifying, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the following collective: "All current and former hourly Telecommunicator Specialists (Dispatchers) and Assistant Communication Supervisors employed by the County of Lancaster in the Department of Public Safety 9-1-1 Division at any time during the during the three-year period prior to the Court's Order granting conditional certification of the FLSA collective"; b. Approving the parties' proposed Notice of Collective Action and Consent to Join form; c. Authorizing dissemination of the Notice and Consent to Join form to potential collective members; and d. Authorizing the production of contact information for potential collective members. The Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), arising from the Defendant's alleged overtime compensation practices applicable to employees in the Lancaster County Department of Public Safety 9-1-1 Division. Lancaster County is in southern Pennsylvania, on the Susquehanna River. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eAX91c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony T Bowser, Esq. KREVSKY BOWSER LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 The Defendant is represented by: Langdon T Ramsburg, Esq. McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Kesel Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIERSTEN KESEL, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-13784-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Julia Kobick entered an order denying Liberty Mutual's motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the defendant for allegedly sending unsolicited prerecorded voice messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and its implementing regulations. Kesel initiated this lawsuit in December 2025 and filed an amended complaint on Jan. 26, 2026, alleging a violation of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. She seeks to represent a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)1 consisting of: "All persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification, (1) the Defendant called (2) using a prerecorded voice message, (3) regarding its goods and/or services, and (4) for whom the Defendant (a) claims it obtained consent in the same manner as the Defendant claims it obtained prior consent to call the Plaintiff, if any, or (b) does not claim it obtained prior consent." Liberty is an American diversified global insurer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RGQvKu at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2873: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Contains PFAS, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF CAMDEN; CITY OF SIOUX FALLS; CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY; CORAOPOLIS WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY; TOWNSHIP OF VERONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02806-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2026) is an action arising from the widespread contamination of drinking water supplies caused by the Defendants' fluorosurfactants containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant manufactured fluorosurfactants containing PFAS, including PFOA, and its chemical precursors for use in products that were stored, handled, used, trained with, tested equipment with, otherwise discharged, and disposed of at, near or within the vicinity of the drinking water supplies of the Plaintiffs and the Class, and entered the environment, migrated through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating or threatening to contaminate the drinking water supplies of the Plaintiffs and the Class. The Defendant was aware or should have been aware that the PFAS from the fluorosurfactants it manufactured would foreseeably end up in Plaintiffs' drinking water supplies. The Camden suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG re AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Nation Ford Chemical Company was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of chemical preparations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 Email: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com -and - Scott Summy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Email: jrice@motleyrice.com MDL 2873: Camden, NJ Balks at Contaminated Drinking Water --------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CAMDEN; CITY OF SIOUX FALLS; CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY; CORAOPOLIS WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY; TOWNSHIP OF VERONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ARCHROMA U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02802-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Public Water Systems arising from the widespread contamination of drinking water supplies by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members supply drinking water to millions of individuals and businesses nationwide. The Proposed Class Representatives own and/or operate public drinking water supply systems, which include groundwater supply wells and surface waters, that supply water to residences, schools, and businesses. These drinking water supplies have been contaminated with PFAS. According to the complaint, Archroma designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold raw telomer iodides used in the manufacturing of fluorosurfactants containing PFAS, including but not limited to PFOA, and/or its chemical precursors for use in many products, including aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The Defendant was aware or should have been aware that the raw telomer iodides it designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold would be used in AFFF products containing PFAS and foreseeably end up in Plaintiffs' drinking water supplies. The Proposed Class Representatives seek to recover the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore their damaged drinking water supplies as well as those of other similarly situated Public Water Systems. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of testing and monitoring water supplies for PFAS contamination; the costs of designing, constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the treatment facilities and equipment required to comply with state and federal drinking water regulations and to remove PFAS from the drinking water supplied to the public; and/or the costs of securing alternative sources of water as a result of PFAS contamination. The City of Camden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Archroma, U.S., Inc. manufacture specialty chemicals. The Company offers brand and performance textile specialties, packaging and board, coated paper, shading dyes and pigments, adhesives, paints, and other related products. Archroma U.S serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. SCOTT SUMMY BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com MDL 2873: Camden, NJ Sues Over Drinking Water Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CAMDEN; CITY OF SIOUX FALLS; CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY; CORAOPOLIS WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY; TOWNSHIP OF VERONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMEREX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02798-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Public Water Systems arising from the widespread contamination of drinking water supplies by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members supply drinking water to millions of individuals and businesses nationwide. The Proposed Class Representatives own and/or operate public drinking water supply systems, which include groundwater supply wells and surface waters, that supply water to residences, schools, and businesses. These drinking water supplies have been contaminated with PFAS. The Proposed Class Representatives seek to represent all similarly situated owners and/or operators of drinking water supplies that have likewise been contaminated with PFAS or were required to test for it under UCMR-5. According to the complaint, the Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold aqueous film-forming foam products containing PFAS, including PFOA, and/or its chemical precursors for use in AFFF products that were stored, handled, used, trained with, tested equipment with, otherwise discharged, and/or disposed of at, near or within the vicinity of the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members, and entered the environment, migrated through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating or threatening to contaminate the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members. The Proposed Class Representatives seek to recover the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore their damaged drinking water supplies as well as those of other similarly situated Public Water Systems. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of testing and monitoring water supplies for PFAS contamination; the costs of designing, constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the treatment facilities and equipment required to comply with state and federal drinking water regulations and to remove PFAS from the drinking water supplied to the public; and/or the costs of securing alternative sources of water as a result of PFAS contamination. The City of Camden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Amerex Corporation is a global manufacturer of fire extinguishers, fire suppression systems, and related safety equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. SCOTT SUMMY BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com MDL 2873: Drinking Water "Contaminated," City of Camden Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF CAMDEN; CITY OF SIOUX FALLS; CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY; CORAOPOLIS WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY; TOWNSHIP OF VERONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02805-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Public Water Systems arising from the widespread contamination of drinking water supplies by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a family of chemical compounds that includes perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). The Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members supply drinking water to millions of individuals and businesses nationwide. The Proposed Class Representatives own and/or operate public drinking water supply systems, which include groundwater supply wells and surface waters, that supply water to residences, schools, and businesses. These drinking water supplies have been contaminated with PFAS. The Proposed Class Representatives seek to represent all similarly situated owners and/or operators of drinking water supplies that have likewise been contaminated with PFAS or were required to test for it under UCMR-5. According to the complaint, the Defendant is liable for the design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of aqueous film-forming foam products containing PFAS, including PFOA, and/or its chemical precursors for use in AFFF products that were stored, handled, used, trained with, tested equipment with, otherwise discharged, and/or disposed of at, near or within the vicinity of the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members, and entered the environment, migrated through the soil, sediment, stormwater, surface water, and groundwater, thereby contaminating or threatening to contaminate the drinking water supplies of the Proposed Class Representatives and Proposed Class Members. The Proposed Class Representatives seek to recover the substantial costs necessary to protect the public and restore their damaged drinking water supplies as well as those of other similarly situated Public Water Systems. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of testing and monitoring water supplies for PFAS contamination; the costs of designing, constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining the treatment facilities and equipment required to comply with state and federal drinking water regulations and to remove PFAS from the drinking water supplied to the public; and/or the costs of securing alternative sources of water as a result of PFAS contamination. The City of Camden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, IN RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Carrier Global Corporation is an American multinational heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, refrigeration, and fire and security equipment corporation based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC One State Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 566-7500 Facsimile: (212) 566-7501 E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com - and - Scott Summy, Esq. SCOTT SUMMY BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com - and - Joseph Rice, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barron Class Certification Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN BARRON, ANDREW SZKLAREK, GRANT ECHOLS and DANIEL GRIEVES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. micromobility.com Inc., SALVATORE PALELLA, SKRILL USA INC., LORENZO PELLEGRINO, JONATHAN HANNESTAD, GIULIO PROFUMO, JUSTIN GUILIANO and BINARY FINANCIAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Castel entered an order: -- denying the motion for class certification; and -- denying the Plaintiffs' letter-motion to strike the defendants' expert reports. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motions. The motion will be denied because plaintiffs have not satisfied the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs' motion ignores Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act's ("RICO") domestic-injury requirement and does not explain how generalized proof can show domestic injury to class members, many of whom purchased on foreign exchanges and held the coin in wallets located in foreign countries. The Plaintiffs move to certify a Class of: "purchasers of Helbiz Coin from Jan. 1, 2018 to Jan. 1, 2023." The Plaintiffs assert that defendants misrepresented to the SEC that HMSP issued and sold the Helbiz Coin out of Singapore, when, in truth, Helbiz and its officer defendants ran the ICO out of New York City Micromobility.com provides dockless intra urban transportation solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CIkA1G at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE REES: Provisional Certification of Class Action OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.D. and J.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MIKE REES; RYAN LEGORE; JEREMY WAGNER; MARK NOOTH; AARON REYES; JOHN DOES 1-5; and STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Case No. 6:25-cv-01726-CL (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Clarke entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of Court's opinion and order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and provisional certification of a class action. The Defendants' request that the Court de-certify the class and strike the relief previously granted is denied. The Defendants' request for clarification and modification of the relief is granted in part. There has been no intervening change in controlling law, nor has the Court been presented with newly discovered evidence. The Defendants contend that the Court committed clear error, and the Court disagrees. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs met the higher burden for a mandatory injunction by finding that the law and the facts clearly favor Plaintiffs' position as to their claims under the Eighth Amendment. Despite the lack of clear error, or any other legal justification for reconsideration of the Court's Opinion and Order granting the Preliminary Injunction, the Court agrees that the orders for relief could be further clarified to prevent misunderstanding and to assist with implementation. This case is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative class of all current and future transgender women in Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") custody. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sxQ9Jq at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL DCP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ICSAM SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DCP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03830-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as a selector. National DCP, LLC operates as a member owned supply chain cooperative. The Company engages in procuring, contracting, and delivering food, packaging, and equipment needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Ramirez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07999 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.horchow.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Neiman Marcus Group LLC designs and manufactures apparel and accessories. The Company offers jewelry, jackets, tops, jeans, shoes, sweaters, handbags, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NORTH CAROLINA: Renewed Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Due July 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ KWIATKOWSKI; ASHLEE INSCOE; PUMPKIN SNUGGS; LULUBELL FRAZIER; and TREMAYNE IZZARD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction and ARTHUR CAMPBELL, in his official capacity as Medical Director of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Case No. 3:26-cv-00098-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Metcalf entered an order that: 1. The Legislative Defendants' consent motion for leave to file amended answer is granted and the Legislative Defendants are given leave to file, on or before July 14, 2026, their proposed amended answer. 2. Any renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be filed no later than July 28, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is stayed pending resolution of the State Defendants' motion to dismiss and any renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings. 4. With respect to the State and Legislative Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and preliminary injunctive relief and for leave to obtain discovery to respond to Plaintiffs' motions: a. To the extent Defendants request an extension to and including Aug. 3, 2026 to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, the Motion is denied as moot. b. To the extent Defendants seek leave to conduct early discovery, the motion is denied without prejudice. The undersigned finds that judicial economy counsels toward resolution of merits issues prior to the consideration, if necessary, of the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. That is, the question of whether, as the Defendants contend, the Plaintiffs' claims are deficient and should be dismissed under Rule 12, should be addressed before the issues of the Plaintiffs' entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief and class certification are considered. On Feb. 6, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint against the State Defendants. On March 18, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for preliminary injunction. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XEVYkv at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH WIND: Discovery Dispute Order Entered in Smith Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. North Wind Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03793 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order on Parties' discovery dispute. Both parties agree, in general terms, that production of a sample of putative class members' names, contact information, time, and pay records (Class Records) by Defendant is sufficient. The Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce a random sample of 250 Class Records and stipulate that the sample is statistically representative of the entire putative class. The Defendant objects, arguing that producing such a stipulation would force it to forfeit arguments to rebut commonality, typicality, predominance, and manageability at the class certification stage. The Court agrees that requiring Defendant to produce such a stipulation is not warranted and could prematurely decide central issues in this case. Instead, Defendant shall produce Class Records for a random sample of 250 putative class members, accompanied by a declaration explaining what methodology Defendant used to select the random sample. The 250 Class Records and supporting declaration shall be produced within fourteen days of entry of this Order, although the parties may stipulate to modify this deadline as needed. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Discrimination. North Wind is an environmental services company.[CC] NORTON NATIONAL: Removes Hernandez Suit to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of STEPHANIE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTON NATIONAL LLC; MCCALL NORTON; MCCALL PECK; FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 26CU029284C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on July 13, 2026. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04035-WQH-BJW. The case is assigned to Judge William Q. Hayes, and referred to Magistrate Brian J. White. Norton National LLC provides specialized administrative and support services tailored to federal and government operations, leveraging its expertise in operational efficiency and compliance-driven workflows. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared M. Katz, Esq. Rafael Gonzalez, Esq. Christina M. Behrman, Esq. MULLEN & HENZELL L.L.P. 112 East Victoria Street Post Office Drawer 789 Santa Barbara, CA 93102-0789 Telephone: (805) 966-1501 Facsimile: (805) 966-9204 Email: jkatz@mullenlaw.com rgonzalez@mullenlaw.com cbehrman@mullenlaw.com NOWHERE HOLDCO: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOWHERE HOLDCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07994 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.erewhon.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NOWHERE Co., Ltd. operates fashion brand. The Company designs, manufactures, and sells men's, women's and kids' lifestyle and street wear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OFFICE ANYTHING.COM: Wilson Seeks Equal Web Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE ANYTHING.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-07991 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.officeanything.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. OfficeAnything.com, Inc. is a private, family-owned e-commerce retailer and B2B distributor based in Jacksonville, Florida. The company provides commercial-grade office furniture, seating, and ergonomic accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com OMNI HOTELS: Lystad Sues Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance ------------------------------------------------------- KARIN LYSTAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and TRT HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-07398 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Omni Hotels Management Corporation operates hotels and resorts. The Company offers personalized services, benefits, rewards to guests, and sensational kids programs to individuals and families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com LegalDept@colevannote.com POST ACUTE: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order Entered In Leglise ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYANN LEGLISE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. POST ACUTE MEDICAL, PLLC d/b/a PAM HEALTH; PAM SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF RENO; PAM SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF LAS VEGAS and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-00245-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order adopting the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. -- The last day to file motions to amend pleadings is 90 days prior to the close of discovery, or Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2026. -- Expert disclosures must be made no later than 59 days prior to close of discovery, or Thursday, Nov. 19, 2026. -- The Plaintiff filed her motion for conditional certification pursuant to 216(b) on July 2, 2026. The Defendant's response shall be due 32 days thereafter, or Monday, Aug. 3, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply shall be due 21 days thereafter or Monday, Aug. 24, 2026. -- The filing of the Plaintiff's motion for FRCP 23 class certification shall be 91 days after the close of Discovery on or Monday, April 19, 2027. The Defendant's response shall be due 30 days thereafter or Tuesday, May 18, 2027. The Plaintiff's reply shall be due 21 days thereafter, or Tuesday, June 8, 2027. This is a putative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23 pursuant to Nevada wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action (the FLSA claim) as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of herself and a proposed collective of similarly situated employees defined as: FLSA Class: "All current and former non-exempt patient-care employees who were employed by the Defendants in the State of Nevada during the relevant time period." The Plaintiff brings the Second through Fifth Causes of Action (the Nevada Class Claims) as an "opt-out" class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of: Nevada Meal Break Class: "All nonexempt hourly paid employees employed by the Defendants in the State of Nevada who clocked out for a meal break lasting less than 30 minutes in duration during a continuous shift of 8 hours or more at any time during the relevant time period alleged herein." Continuation Wage Class: "All members of the FLSA and/or Nevada Meal Break Class who are no longer employed by the Defendants." PAM Health is a healthcare provider that specializes in rehabilitation. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNJWNX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Williams, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. Diana G. Dickinson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1301 McKinney St., Ste. 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-4700 Facsimile: (713) 513-5962 E-mail: acwilliams@littler.com wliles@littler.com ddickinson@littler.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Class Certification Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANINE NARCISSE, v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Koeltl entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs cannot be harmed by a deceptive statement to which they were never exposed, regardless of whether they ever interacted with the insurer. Each class member's claim will depend on the individualized proof of whether that class member was exposed to an allegedly misleading communication from Progressive and the nature of that communication. These individualized questions would predominate over any alleged generalized issues common to the class. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) for the section 349 claim. The Plaintiffs seek to certify various damages classes pursuant to the Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of: "All persons (a) who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive to a New York resident where, from the earliest allowable time through the date an order granting class certification is entered, Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss, based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle, and (b) whose claim was not released in the settlement approved in Volino v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.)." Progressive operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ck7ojT at no extra charge.[CC] RACK ROOM: Smith Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH and MAIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs allege and prove that Defendant assisted third parties—including but not limited to Meta, Attentive, Zeta, Adobe, and Google—with intercepting the content of their private communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following classes: Nationwide Purchaser Class: "All individuals who purchased products through Rack Room's website from May 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025." Nationwide Meta Class: "All individuals who purchased products through Rack Room's website from July 1, 2021, through Dec. 1, 2025, and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." California Purchaser Class – CIPA section 631: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between May 1, 2022, and Dec. 1, 2025, using shipping addresses exclusively within California." California Meta Class – CIPA section 631: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between July 1, 2021, through Dec. 1, 2025, using shipping addresses exclusively within California and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." California Purchaser Class – CIPA section 632: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between May 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025." California Meta Class – CIPA section 632: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between July 1, 2021, through Dec. 1, 2025, and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." Rack markets shoes for men, women, and kids. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F5suVO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYERS LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 E-mail: mpineiro@mrpfirm.com creilly@mrpfirm.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. Jacob Polin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ph. 2B Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com jpolin@levinlawpa.com RALPH LAUREN: Salazar Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salazar v. Ralph Lauren Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for class certification and granting in part and denying in part motions to exclude. The Court denies the Defendant's motion to exclude. The Court grants in part and denies in part the remaining motions to exclude. The Court grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and certifies a nationwide 23(b)(2) class defined as: "All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website using screen-reading software from January 2022 up to and including final judgment in this action." The Court denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to the 23(b)(3) California subclass. The Court terminates Dkt. Nos. 136, 142, and 146, which are unredacted versions of the original motions. The Court orders that Lead Plaintiff Richard Paul Merrell is appointed as Class Representative and orders that Lead Counsel Wilshire Law Firm, PLC shall serve as Class Counsel. The Court further sets a case management conference in this case on Aug. 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and file a joint case management statement by July 28, 2026. Mr. Cannon's opinion discusses what the individualized differences are, not how they do or don't satisfy Rule 23. As a result, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike and exclude the expert report and declarations of Aaron Cannon. The Court concludes that individualized inquiries will predominate, and the Court denies the motion as to the Plaintiff's 23(b)(3) class. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's website, including https://www.ralphlauren.com/, "is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers." Ralph Lauren is a designer, marketer, and distributer of luxury lifestyle products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rw12oy at no extra charge.[CC] RESURGENT CAPITAL: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA COLE CATTENHEAD, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-05583-HDV-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order denying the ex parte application to extend class certification briefing. Resurgent provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P6apUK at no extra charge.[CC] ROBLOX CORP: Police & Fire Retirement Alleges Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, DAVID BASZUCKI, MICHAEL GUTHRIE, and NAVEEN K. CHOPRA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-07160 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2026) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roblox common stock between October 31, 2024, and April 30, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, that during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive investors by issuing a series of material misrepresentations, and omitting material facts and uncertainties required to be disclosed, relating to Roblox's operations, business, financial performance, and prospects. The Plaintiff and the Class unknowingly and in reliance on Defendants' materially false or misleading statements and omissions purchased Roblox common stock at artificially inflated prices on the NYSE. But for Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and fraudulent scheme, the Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased Roblox common stock at the artificially inflated prices at which it traded during the Class Period. The price of Roblox's common stock declined dramatically from a market price of $55.26 per share at the close of trading on April 30, 2026, to $45.13 per share on May 1, 2026, a decline of 18.33 percent, alleges the suit. Roblox Corporation provides entertainment products and services. The Company designs and develops a wide range of online games such as internet three-dimensional and tutorial games for kids, teens, and adults. Roblox serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT &EISENHOFER P.A. 2325 Third Street, Suite 329 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 229-9720 Facsimile: (415) 789-4367 Email: egraham@gelaw.com ROSS & YERGER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rideout Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA RIDEOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS & YERGER INSURANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00494-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss., July 9, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its customers. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the PII of the Plaintiff and the Class. Defendant's failures placed the Plaintiff and the Class's PII in a vulnerable position, rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Ross & Yerger Insurance, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers business and personal insurance, captives, healthcare, property management, and employee benefits solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Crymes M. Pittman, Esq. C. Victor Welsh, III, Esq. Ann R. Chandler, Esq. PITTMAN ROBERTS & WELSH, PLLC 410 South President Street Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-6200 Facsimile: (601) 948-6187 Email: cmp@prwlaw.com cvw@prwlaw.com achandler@prwlaw.com SELENE FINANCE: Bid Certify Class in De Conto Due Nov. 5, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE DE CONTO, individually and On behalf of those similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE LP, Case No. 1:26-cv-00386-MN (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Noreika entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All motions to join other parties, and to amend or supplement the pleadings, shall be filed on or before Dec. 31, 2026. -- All fact Discovery related to the merits of the claims in this case shall be completed on or before Jan. 4, 2027. -- All fact discovery relating to class certification in this case shall be initiated so that it will be completed on or before July 9, 2027. -- Any motion to certify a class shall be made by Nov. 5, 2027. Any opposition shall be filed by Dec. 6, 2027, and any reply in support of the motion shall be filed by Dec. 20, 2027. -- Any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before Feb. 28, 2028. -- This matter is scheduled for a 5-day jury trial beginning on Oct. 16, 2028. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IEJ7s4 at no extra charge.[CC] SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE: Sued Over Improper Mortgage Foreclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW BEKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING LLC; NEWREZ LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing; WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB; GALTON FUNDING MORTGAGE TRUST 2019-H1; PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21515 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2026) is a California mortgage-servicing and wrongful-foreclosure action arising from a California residential home loan, secured by California real property, governed by California law, and brought by a California borrower against the loan servicer, the beneficiary of record, the securitization trust, and the California foreclosure trustee responsible for the servicing and attempted nonjudicial foreclosure of that loan. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in a servicing scheme that manufactured and perpetuated a default through multiple coordinated practices, in breach of the governing loan documents: the misapplication of Plaintiff's payments, the assessment of unauthorized fees and improper late charges, the wrongful rejection of a timely payment, the withholding of Plaintiffs insurance proceeds, the furnishing of inaccurate credit information over an extended period, and the prosecution of a nonjudicial foreclosure premised on an inaccurate accounting. Each practice inflated or perpetuated an apparent delinquency that, properly accounted under the governing loan documents, does not exist, says the Plaintiff. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing provides mortgage loan services. The Company provides loan servicing for clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Lee Borsuk, Esq. Jonathan Lee Borsuk PC 222 North Canon Drive Suite 203 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (424) 293-8100 Facsimile: (917) 725-9676 Email: jonathan@jlborsuk.com SMOOTHIE KING: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA O. GAZONNI, v. SMOOTHIE KING CO., INC., a Foreign for profit Corporation, doing business as Smoothie King, Case No. 1:26-cv-24603-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order requiring counsel to meet, file joint scheduling report and joint discovery report. The Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to forward to all Defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this order. The Court further orders that: 1. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.1. 2. Within 35 calendar days of the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, unless this action is excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B.2.1 3. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the scheduling conference report. However, unilateral submissions are prohibited. 4. Failure of counsel or unrepresented parties to file a discovery plan report or joint scheduling report may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. 5. If a case is settled, counsel are directed to inform the Court promptly at (954) 769- 5650, and to submit an appropriate stipulation Order for Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). Smoothie is a privately-held company operating over 1,000 nutritional lifestyle centers and franchised smoothie bars. A copy of the Court's order dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nn6G8V at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN AUSTIN: Myers Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA MYERS, et al., v. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY ("SFA"), Case No. 9:25-cv-00187-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class for declaratory and injunctive under Rule 23(b)(2) of: "All present and future female students at SFA who are being deprived of the opportunity to participate on women's varsity intercollegiate athletic teams." The Plaintiffs also move to appoint Ryann Allison and Taryn Clayton as class representatives. The Plaintiffs further move to appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel Arthur Bryant Law, P.C., Hutchinson Black and Cook, LLC, and Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP, as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The case arises from SFA's intentional decision to eliminate three women's intercollegiate varsity teams—beach volleyball, bowling, and golf—despite its longstanding failure to provide men and women with equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics. Although SFA ultimately reinstated the women's beach volleyball and women's golf teams, it is still violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because it does not provide its female students with equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate varsity sports. Stephen F. Austin is an NCAA Division I university located in Nacogdoches, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3slJFc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Clune, Esq. Ashlyn Hare, Esq. HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street Ste 200 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303)442-5614 Facsimile: (303) 442-6593 E-mail: john.clune@hbcboulder.com ashlyn.hare@hbcboulder.com - and - Arthur Bryant, Esq. ARTHUR BRYANT LAW, P.C. 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)-391-5454 E-mail: arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com - and - James L. Sowder, Esq. Ellen R. Platt, Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, LLP 700 N. Pearl St. 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 871-8200 Facsimile: (214)871-8209 E-mail: jsowder@thompsoncoe.com eplatt@thompsoncoe.com SUNSOURCE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Holl Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER HOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSOURCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08309 (N.D. IL., July 14, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information -- together "PII/PHI" -- about its current and former employees. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, alleges the suit. SunSource operates as an industrial machinery manufacturer. The Company offers fluid power components, mobile hydraulics, automation and motion control, lubrication, and facility repair and maintenance services. SunSource serves customers in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Strauss Borrelli PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com TK TRADING: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TK TRADING COMPANY, GBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05765 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.stormcreek.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. TK Trading Company GBC (doing business as Storm Creek) is a women-owned, sustainable apparel and outdoor clothing brand based in Eagan, Minnesota.[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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TORCHSTONE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shakhov Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- OLEG N. SHAKHOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORCHSTONE GLOBAL, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21554 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Shakhov was employed by the Defendants as a staff. TorchStone Global, LLC operates as a private risk mitigation and security advisory firm providing executive protection, intelligence, and crisis management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 775-9000 Facsimile: (323) 775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com US EXPEDITERS: Nguyen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- HIEN DUY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US EXPEDITERS; and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-05411 (S.D. Tex., July 8, 2026) alleges violations of the California's Trap and Trace Law and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website on November 30, 2025. Without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, the Defendant deployed a de-anonymization process to identify Plaintiff using incoming electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device. The Defendant's installation of the TikTok tracing process violates California's Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, alleges the suit. U.S. Expediters, LLC, doing business as CPAP.com provides sleep apnea equipment. The Company offers mask parts, hoses, filters, sleep accessories, and power solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 100 Crescent Court, 7th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (512) 456-8760 VIP UNIVERSAL: Responsive Deadline Extended in Reeves Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reeves v. VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01303 (N.D. Tex., Filed April 22, 2026), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting the joint stipulation of Plaintiff Jasmine Reeves (Plaintiff) together with Defendant VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group, LLC (Defendant), to extend Defendants responsive deadline and stay all class certification deadlines. The Defendants deadline to respond to Plaintiffs complaint shall be extended to September 6, 2026, and all class certification deadlines are stayed, including Plaintiffs deadline to file a motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity -- Other Contract. VIP is an international health insurance company.[CC] VISION OF HOPE: Seeks Leave to Submit Oversized Brief in Miller --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSANNA MILLER, FAITH RUSSELL, AND RACHEL MILLER, 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting leave to exceed the 25-page limit set by N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(e)(1) and permitting the Defendants to file an oversized brief in support of its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants' response brief requires a lengthy statement of facts and background, along with argument on multiple complex class action issues. The Defendants submit that they need to file an oversized brief to fully address the law on federal class actions, the factual record underlying the Plaintiffs' claims, and to properly address the Plaintiffs' arguments. Vision of Hope provides humanitarian aid. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O43qBw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barry L. Loftus, Esq. Jason W. Bennett, Esq. Kirstie E. Klutzke, Esq. STUART & BRANIGIN LLP 300 Main Street, Suite 900 Lafayette, IN 47901 Telephone: (765) 423-1561 Facsimile: (765) 742-8175 E-mail: bll@stuartlaw.com jwb@stuartlaw.com kek@stuartlaw.com VSL PHARMA: Class Settlement in Starr Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID STARR et al., v. VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02173-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order that: (1) Grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; (2) Conditionally certifies the Proposed Settlement Class; (3) Approves the Plaintiffs David Starr, Bernadette Mavrikos, Edmund Quiambao, James Tettenhorst, Jeremy Hansen, Krista Karo, Arlene Reed-Cossairt, Peter Stavros and Heather Farkas to represent the Settlement Class; (4) Appoints Jeremy W. Schulman, Esq., and Jeffrey S. Gavenman, Esq., of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, and Edward F. Haber, Esq., Michelle H. Blauner, Esq., Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq., and Patrick J. Vallely, Esq., of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP as the Settlement Class Counsel; and (5) Preliminarily approves the settlement Agreement. In addition, the Court orders as follows: (6) The Court provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a "Settlement Class," pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), consisting of: "All persons who purchased a VSL#3 Class Product in the United States beginning June 1, 2016, and ending June 19, 2019." The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class: officers and directors of Defendants Alfasigma, Leadiant, and VSL, and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entity in which they have a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are any persons or entities that purchased VSL#3 Class Products exclusively for the purpose of reselling the VSL#3 Class Product to a consumer. Finally, also excluded from the Class are all judges assigned to hear any aspect of the Litigation, as well as their staff and immediate family; and Settlement Class Counsel, their staff members, and their immediate family. (7) The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Jan. 6, 2027 [at least 165 days after entry of this Preliminary Approval Order] at 2:30 p.m. The Settlement Agreement provides a substantial and immediate benefit to the Settlement Class Members in the form of a $20 million non-reversionary common fund. VSL provides medical food for the dietary management of patients. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e4fhM4 at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Henzel Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Silva entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and providing for notice. -- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a class defined as: "All natural and legal persons who invested in a J&J Entity lawsuit settlement contract between January 2017 and March 2022 and who incurred a loss of their principle investment (in whole or in part) as determined by the Receiver pursuant to his court-appointed duties and as identified in the Receiver's official records submitted to the court in the SEC Action." Excluded from the class are Wells Fargo and the Relevant Non-Parties as defined in the Class Action Complaint; their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and employees; and any judge to whom the Class Action or Receiver Action is assigned, his or her spouse, and all persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, as well as the spouses of such persons. -- A final approval hearing will be held before this court on Nov. 12, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant (1) violated the Nevada Uniform Fiduciaries Act; (2) aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty; (3) aided and abetted fraud; and (4) were negligent arising out of and relating to an alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Jeffrey Judd and Matthew Beasley. Wells Fargo Bank has agreed to pay $50,000,000 to resolve the Class Action and the Receiver Action. Wells Fargo is a full-service bank. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Tmktw at no extra charge.[CC] WHOOP INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sanderson Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON, v. WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Breyer entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion. The Court grants the Defendant's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) claims, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim to the extent it seeks equitable restitution or injunctive relief, for lack of equitable jurisdiction and dismisses those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Court denies the Defendant's motion in all other respects. Sanderson's testimony and the circumstantial evidence offered by Whoop are in genuine tension with one another. The Court therefore denies summary judgment as to both parties on the reliance element of the Plaintiff's CLRA claim. The claim may proceed to trial on all four elements. The Court also denies the Plaintiff's request for partial summary judgment, presented at the June 26, 2026, hearing, on the threshold question of whether Whoop violated the ARL as a matter of law. Genuine disputes of material fact persist as to several components of the ARL compliance question. These are questions of fact for the jury. The Plaintiff alleges that Whoop, Inc. violated California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL") and, through said violations, deceived consumers and illegally charged them for continually-renewing memberships. Whoop sells wearable fitness trackers and a subscription-based membership that allows users to access associated tracking software. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxzNQE at no extra charge.[CC] [^] Expert Witnesses Shaping Class Action Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- A list of some of the expert witnesses recently retained in class action litigation. By Stella Maris Bangis Otero Complex litigation often comes down to who can make the complicated sound simple. That's where expert witnesses come in. Drawing on their professional experience and technical expertise, they explain complex issues in a way that helps judges and juries evaluate the facts and the claims before them. Here is a list of over 60 expert witnesses who provided their services to either plaintiffs or defendants in class action and mass tort litigation in the past 18 months: A full-text copy of Part I of the Class Action Updates report is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/expert-witnesses-shaping-class-action-583 (subscription required). A full-text copy of Part II of the report is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/expert-witnesses-shaping-class-action-5d9 (subscription required). ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***