260724.mbx

260724.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 24, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 147 Headlines 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sanders Alleges 3M COMPANY: E.I. du Pont Bid for Summary Judgment v. Parris Tossed 3M COMPANY: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Parris ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kersten Removed from State Court to M.D. Tenn. AETNA LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Gordon Due March 5, 2027 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS: Moseby Suit Removed to E.D. California AIR PRODUCTS: Moseby Suit Removed to E.D. California ALBANY MED: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Schnitzer Says ALLERGAN INC: Drakes's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ALLERGAN INC: Henson's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ALLERGAN INC: Morales Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ALLIED VAN LINES: Schell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ALTO PHARMACY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Muhammad Due August 17 AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid Due August 23 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sandhar Suit Removed to E.D. California AMAZON.COM: Lasseter Seeks Return of Unlawfully Charged Tariffs AMERICOLLECT INC: Medina Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida APPLE INC: Bargo Suit Transferred to N.D. California APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading "Hide My Email" Feature ARTIST GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Cole Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BAYOU TITLE INC: Aswell Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana BLANK ROME: Olmo Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII BOWCOR INC: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Block Drip-Pricing Class BRINKER RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California C&M BAGELS: Soriano Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL C. HARPER FORD: Mento Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania CALIX INC: Faces Noor Securities Class Suit Over Misstatements CAREMARK PCS: Dismissal of Flowers Pharmacy Network Suit Affirmed CASELY INC: Meade Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. CATASTROPHE RESPONSE: Court Partially OKs Bid to Compel Discovery CENTRO CANARIAS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Says CHANEL INC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CHEMOCENTRYX INC: $69MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 29 CHESAPEAKE BAY HOLDINGS: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHRISTIAN DIOR INC: Torres Suit Removed to N.D. California CHW GROUP INC: Lamar Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Court Awards Over $170MM in Damages to Investors COMHAR INC: Arbogast Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info COSTCO WHOLESALE: Barton Sues Over Contaminated Products CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Bass Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. CYTODYN INC: $500,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 2 DANAHER CORP: Hawkins Deal Gets Prelim OK; Derivative Suits Pending DIN/CAL MANAGEMENT: Cummings Sues Over Unlawful Tenants Fees DOORDASH INC: Slawson Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ECOLAB PRODUCTION: Berge Suit Removed to C.D. California ELANCO US: Dismissal of Vacation Buy Claims in Creason Affirmed EQUIFAX INC: Credit Inquiry Class Suits Reach Settlement Agreement ERNST & YOUNG: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach EXECUTIVE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code FAIRLIFE LLC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims FEDEX GROUND: Abeyta Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages FIELDING GRADUATE: Suit Balks at Denied Disability Accommodations FIESTA INSURANCE: Garcia Sues Over Alleged Data Security Breach FIGURE LENDING: Nouri Suit Removed to S.D. California FIRST BANK: Mozafari Suit Removed to C.D. California FIRST IN RESCUE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FORD MOTOR: Must not Retain Tariff Refund, Bullock Says FREDERICK BRANDON FREEDOM: Genao Files Suit in W.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in U.S. and Canada GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Coolant Leak Defect GH HOSPITALITY: De La Torre Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code GLUCOBIT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Delong Alleges GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Autorenewal Class Action for $7.5MM GOOGLE LLC: Sued Over Alleged Use of Books to Train Gemini AI GREENBRIER HOTEL: Rouse FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Wells Suit Removed to C.D. California HAMILTON HEALTH: Waters-Rain Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania HCA HEALTHCARE: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. HOT TOPIC INC: Gallo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HSBC BANK: Judgment Dismissing Rubino Complaint Entered on Appeal INNS MANAGEMENT: Rangel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Brownlee Suit Transferred to D. Utah INTER-CON SECURITY: Doe Suit Alleges Data Security Breach INTUITIVE SURGICAL: SIS Antitrust Class Suit Trial Set for Sept. 14 JM WIRELESS: Faces Camacho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KALSHI INC: Installs Trackers Without Consent, Vazquez Alleges KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES: Miller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. KEYBANK NATIONAL: Simmons Suit Removed to W.D. Washington KHRG LA PEER: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Tapia Alleges LUME DEODORANT: Faces Class Suit Over Fragrance in Deodorants MAJOR DRILLING: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Velarde" Overtime Suit MARC JACOBS INTERNATIONAL: Ambriz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MBLS PIZZA: Childs Seeks to Recover Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages MEGARME LLC: Fails to Pay Supervisors Proper OT Wages, Suit Says METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION: Fraijo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington METROPOLITAN MARINE: Johnson Files Suit in D. New Jersey MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach NEW YORK, NY: Makkawi Suit Transferred to E.D. New York NFL ENTERPRISES LLC: Kimmons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORTHROP GRUMAN: Bethpage Class Suit Mediation Ongoing NOVELLIS CORP: Beecham Sues Over Failure to Proper Wages NULO INC: Faces Vickers Suit Over Dog Food Product's Deceptive Ads OFFICE DEPOT LLC: Tolentino Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ORACLE CORPORATION: Lorenc Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. OREPAC HOLDING: Underhill Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Cole Seeks Security Staff's Unpaid Wages PATTERN BEAUTY: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PAWLEYS ISLAND: Faces Suit for Hiring Sex Offender as Volunteer PEGASYSTEMS INC: Securities Suit Trial Set; Derivative Suit Settled PEOPLES CARTAGE INC: Anthony Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia PINNACLE BANK: Cox Suit Removed to C.D. California PLANET FITNESS: Faces Matsunaga Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop PLANT PEOPLE PBC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Funk Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cheatham Sues Over Drop in Share Price REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Drug Trial Statements RELISH LABS: Ferrara Sues Over Deceptive Meal Delivery Service Ads RENT GROUP: Esparza Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Men's Deodorant REYES COCA-COLA: Duran FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California RIGHT AT SCHOOL: Danley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Leighton False Ad Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. RSCR CALIFORNIA: Catchings Suit Removed to C.D. California SAM'S EAST: Rose Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA SIG SAUER: 8th Cir. Dismisses Class Suit Over Defective P320 Pistol STUBHUB INC: Stasium Sues Over Misleading Sales of Tickets SWIFT PORK: Court OKs $930K Settlement Over Facility Odor SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Torres Alleges T. SLACK: N.J. Super. App. Div. Limits WHL Look-Back in Martinez TARGET CORP: Martinez Seeks Refund of Allegedly Unlawful Tariffs TOTAL SYSTEM: Commerce Equipment Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Data Security TRUWILD LLC: Automatically Renews Paid Subscription, Sanchez Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Membership's Automatic Renewal UNITED HEALTH: Ainsworth Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITED NATURAL: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Abramczyk Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Total Care Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UPLIFTING RESULTS: Pitre Suit Removed to N.D. California WALMART INC: White Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WESTERN OILFIELDS: Dowdy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WOODBRIDGE, NJ: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Pay Violations WRIGHT EQUITIES INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZYMERGEN INC: $125MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 13 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces $32MM Verdict in Talc Lawsuit ********* 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sanders Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1LIFE HEALTHCARE, INC., D/B/A ONE MEDICAL, Case No. 3:26-cv-07053 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2026) is a class action against 1Life for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard her and at least thousands of other individuals' personally identifying information and protected health information including demographic and clinical records. One Medical is a primary care provider that Amazon purchased for $3.9 billion in One Medical acquired Iora Health in 2021, and "inherited Iora's patient data, its vendor relationships, and every HIPAA obligation attached to them," according to Baxter Lee, president of security firm Clearwater. An unauthorized party gained access to third-party file storage systems owned by One Medical between June 8, 2026, and June 11, 2026. Cybercriminal group ShinyHunters has claimed credit for the Data Breach, and claimed to have exfiltrated 8.8 terabytes of data. The data breach reportedly affected an undisclosed number of "Iora Health/One Medical Seniors patients in Atlanta, Cape Cod, Charlotte, Piedmont Triad, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Tucson, and Seattle." One Medical provides health visits, chronic care management, pediatric and mental health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law 3M COMPANY: E.I. du Pont Bid for Summary Judgment v. Parris Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR., individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and the Chemours Company's motion for summary judgment. The Court says that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether DuPont's actions, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, were a proximate cause of the resulting water contamination in the Raccoon Creek watershed. Accordingly, the Court will deny DuPont's motion for summary judgment on this issue. Because the Court has not granted summary judgment in DuPont's favor on any of the Plaintiffs' claims seeking money damages, they may continue to pursue their alternative theories for injunctive relief with regard to abating the nuisance. So, although the Court has already ruled that a class may not be certified for injunctive relief, Parris and Summerville, as named Plaintiffs, may continue to pursue both injunctive relief and monetary damages until such time as a jury awards one or the other form of relief at trial. Therefore, the Court denies DuPont's motion as to the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The case arises out of the alleged contamination of surface waters and drinking water in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). 3M is a diversified manufacturer known for producing a wide range of industrial and consumer products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZYiea at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Partly Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Parris ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR. Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. In the face of Dr. Andrews' data-supported opinion that there is no evidence that Daikin's short-chain fluorotelomer products could have contributed PFOA to the Raccoon Creek watershed, the Court cannot take the Plaintiffs' word that the possibility of causation exists. The Court will thus grant summary judgment in Daikin's favor as to causation with regard to Daikin's short-chain fluorotelomer products that it sold directly to Mount Vernon Mills. There is no dispute that the waste at issue ultimately led to the contamination of Raccoon Creek. Because Daikin has not carried its burden on the issue of showing it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, the Court will deny Daikin's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Summerville's GWQCA claim (Count Nine of Summerville's Complaint). This case arises out of the alleged contamination of surface waters and drinking water in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). The Plaintiff Earl Parris, Jr., a City of Summerville resident, filed this action in February 2021 on behalf of himself and a class of Summerville residents whose drinking water was contaminated with PFAS, purportedly as a result of the Defendants' actions. 3M is a diversified manufacturer known for producing a wide range of industrial and consumer products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WdBack at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Kersten Removed from State Court to M.D. Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKLYN MACINA-KERSTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC. and CENTERPOINTE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, Case No. 26CV55925 (Filed June 29, 2026) has been removed from Chancery Court of Williamson County, Tennessee, for the Twenty-First Judicial District at Franklin, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on July 14, 2026. The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00972 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that hers and the proposed class members' claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff also alleges that Acadia's notice stated that certain personal or protected health information of Defendants' patients were compromised in the Incident, including patient names, addresses, dates of birth, treatment information, health insurance information, Medicare Health Insurance Claim Numbers (which may include Social Security numbers), dates of admission, diagnosis codes, and status as a patient. Acadia is a provider of behavioral healthcare services, operating a network of acute, specialty, outpatient, and comprehensive treatment. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Miles A. McDowell, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mmcdowell@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn H. Walker, Esq. Taylor M. Sample, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 21 Platform Way South, Suite 3500 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 E-mail: kwalker@bassberry.com taylor.sample@bassberry.com - and - Christopher A. Wiech BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1170 Peachtree Street, Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 459-0050 Facsimile: (404) 459-5734 E-mail: cwiech@bakerlaw.com AETNA LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Gordon Due March 5, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gordon et al v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting motion to amend scheduling order as follows: Joint status report on the status of discovery due September 11, 2026. Fact depositions due October 23, 2026. Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof by October 30, 2026. Depositions of such experts will be completed by November 20, 2026. Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof by December 11, 2026. Depositions of such experts will be completed by January 15, 2027. Joint status report on the status of discovery due December 18, 2026. All discovery will be completed by January 22, 2027. Parties' joint request for a settlement conference due January 22, 2027. Motion for class certification due March 5, 2027. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Aetna provides insurance products.[CC] AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS: Moseby Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Marvin Moseby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 26CV013081 was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02375-DAD-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Air Products -- https://www.airproducts.com/ -- provide essential industrial gases, related equipment and applications expertise to customers in dozens of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, P.C. 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alyssa Malinoski, Esq. Michael John Nader, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Email: alyssa.malinoski@ogletreedeakins.com michael.nader@ogletree.com AIR PRODUCTS: Moseby Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marvin Moseby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV013081 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01145. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts individual and class claims for Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; and Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alyssa C. Malinoski, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com alyssa.malinoski@ogletree.com ALBANY MED: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Schnitzer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GAYLA SCHNITZER and VALETTA MCENTYRE, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ALBANY MED HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:26-cv-01357-BKS-PJE (N.D.N.Y., July 10, 2026) seeks to enjoin Albany Med from disclosing patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties without consent. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Albany Med from embedding third-party tracking technology on the Website that intercepts and transmits such information without patients' knowledge, and to recover compensation for aggrieved Class Members. Accordingly, unbeknownst to those users, however -- and constituting a significant violation of their privacy -- Albany Med, without patient consent, allows third parties, including Google, to intercept, read, and utilize for commercial gain PII and PHI gleaned from their use of the Website. Albany Med is a private, nonprofit health system. Through its website, AlbanyMed.org, users can search for doctors, browse medical conditions and treatments, and schedule appointments, thereby communicating to Albany Med protected health information (PHI).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com ALLERGAN INC: Drakes's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drake v. Allergan, USA Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-3756 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Martinotti entered a judgment denying the Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their respective short form complaints. The Court selects Henson's case (Civ. A. No. 21-11728) as the first to be tried before this Court on Nov. 2, 2026, and selects Rabin's case (Civ. A. No. 22-4222) as the second to be tried on a date to be scheduled following the conclusion of the first bellwether trial. In light of the Court's findings that the parties have already agreed to try the Bellwether Trial Cases in this District before this Court, which cannot be changed simply by amending the short form complaints under Rule 15, the Court finds amending the short form complaints for the sole purpose of designating this District as the presumptive place for trial after the parties have consented and agreed to try the cases in this District is inherently frivolous. Accordingly, Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend the short form complaints are clearly futile, the Court contends. On Dec.18, 2019, twenty-five separate but related actions were transferred and consolidated in this multidistrict litigation ("MDL") for centralized pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. section 1407. On March 18, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed direct filing order, which permitted additional related actions to be directly filed in this District as short form complaints and automatically consolidated in this MDL. Allergan provides pharmaceuticals products. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U9ZHSA at no extra charge.[CC] ALLERGAN INC: Henson's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henson v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-11728 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Martinotti entered a judgment denying the Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their respective short form complaints. The Court selects Henson's case (Civ. A. No. 21-11728) as the first to be tried before this Court on Nov. 2, 2026, and selects Rabin's case (Civ. A. No. 22-4222) as the second to be tried on a date to be scheduled following the conclusion of the first bellwether trial. In light of the Court's findings that the parties have already agreed to try the Bellwether Trial Cases in this District before this Court, which cannot be changed simply by amending the short form complaints under Rule 15, the Court finds amending the short form complaints for the sole purpose of designating this District as the presumptive place for trial after the parties have consented and agreed to try the cases in this District is inherently frivolous. Accordingly, Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend the short form complaints are clearly futile, the Court contends. On Dec.18, 2019, twenty-five separate but related actions were transferred and consolidated in this multidistrict litigation ("MDL") for centralized pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. section 1407. On March 18, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed direct filing order, which permitted additional related actions to be directly filed in this District as short form complaints and automatically consolidated in this MDL. Allergan provides pharmaceuticals products. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Ef99e at no extra charge.[CC] ALLERGAN INC: Morales Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales-Hernandez et al., v. Allergan, USA Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-3523 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Martinotti entered a judgment denying the Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their respective short form complaints. The Court selects Henson's case (Civ. A. No. 21-11728) as the first to be tried before this Court on Nov. 2, 2026, and selects Rabin's case (Civ. A. No. 22-4222) as the second to be tried on a date to be scheduled following the conclusion of the first bellwether trial. In light of the Court's findings that the parties have already agreed to try the Bellwether Trial Cases in this District before this Court, which cannot be changed simply by amending the short form complaints under Rule 15, the Court finds amending the short form complaints for the sole purpose of designating this District as the presumptive place for trial after the parties have consented and agreed to try the cases in this District is inherently frivolous. Accordingly, Moving Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend the short form complaints are clearly futile, the Court contends. On Dec.18, 2019, twenty-five separate but related actions were transferred and consolidated in this multidistrict litigation ("MDL") for centralized pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. section 1407. On March 18, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed direct filing order, which permitted additional related actions to be directly filed in this District as short form complaints and automatically consolidated in this MDL. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=31EZp6 at no extra charge.[CC] ALLIED VAN LINES: Schell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Van Lines, Inc. The case is styled as John Schell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-07871 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Allied Van Lines -- https://www.allied.com/ -- is an American moving company founded in 1928 as a cooperative non-profit organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com ALTO PHARMACY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Muhammad Due August 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered a scheduling order as follows: Nevertheless, the Court will grant one final extension of the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by Aug. 17, 2026; the Defendants' opposition shall be filed by Sept. 17, 2026; and the Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by Oct. 1, 2026. No further extensions of this schedule will be granted absent good cause. The parties shall finalize the deposition schedule by no later than 2 weeks from today and submit a letter to the Court by July 23, 2026 setting forth the deposition schedule. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 329 Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KPMiEz at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid Due August 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRIMAN BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00977-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order granting plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the complaint and modify the case schedule. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on the docket by July 24, 2026. 3. The case schedule is modified as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of document Nov. 13, 2026 production: Completion of fact witness depositions: March 12, 2027 Parties to exchange expert reports for April 23, 2027 affirmative expert witnesses on class certification: The Plaintiff's class certification Aug. 23, 2027 motion: Amazon's class certification opposition Sept. 22, 2027 and Daubert motion(s): Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QU45kq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Meredith Simons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com cpeterson@hechtpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sandhar Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jasmeen Sandhar, an individual, and others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV013244 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01144. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action against Amazon: pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); gender and sex discrimination in violation of the FEHA; failure to provide reasonable accommodations in violation of the FEHA; failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA; denial of pregnancy disability leave in violation of the FEHA; interference with, restraint of, and denial of rights under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"); retaliation in violation of the FEHA; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of the FEHA; and wrongful termination violation of public policy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason S. Mills, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: jason.mills@morganlewis.com - and - Anna M. Robshaw, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: +1.713.890.5000 Fax: +1.713.890.5001 Email: anna.robshaw@morganlewis.com AMAZON.COM: Lasseter Seeks Return of Unlawfully Charged Tariffs --------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON LASSETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 8:26-cv-02019 (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2026) seeks a judgment that requires the Defendant to return to Plaintiff all International Emergency Economic Powers Act duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest as well as seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Defendant recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. The class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff, purchaser of goods that Defendant sold 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, and against Defendant who shifted the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs to 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 by Defendant to Plaintiff. The Defendant now receives an inequitable windfall by collecting refunds from the federal government for tariff costs that were shifted to and paid by Plaintiff, who purchased goods from Defendant, and therefore, is the real party in interest to receive the IEEPA tariff refunds. The Defendant 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, says the suit. The refund process set in place by the federal government when the United States Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs established that only the importer of record is entitled to apply for and receive a refund for any moneys paid for the import of goods. However, Defendant shifted the cost of these tariffs to its customers by way of price increases to products subject to tariffs and items not subjected to tariffs, being Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who bore the tariff costs in the first place. The Defendant 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 Defendant -- are the ones left paying for it, the suit alleges. AMAZON.COM, INC. is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, entertainment, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq. FARRELL & FULLER LAW 270 Munoz Rivera Ave. Ste. 201 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (939) 293-8244 Facsimile: (939) 293-8245 E-mail: mike@farrellfuller.com AMERICOLLECT INC: Medina Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americollect Inc. The case is styled as Marlon Medina, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situate v. Americollect Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-24654-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Americollect Inc. -- https://www.americollect.com/ -- is a hospital & health care company based out of Powder Springs, Georgia, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas John Patti, III, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 3325 Northwest 55th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone: (561) 542-8550 Email: Tom@pzlg.legal - and - Talal Rashid, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 110 SE 6th St., Fl. 17 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (305) 332-6201 Email: talal@pzlg.legal APPLE INC: Bargo Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Julian Bargo, Lamar Prater and Rebecca Pratt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., APPLE PAYMENTS INC., GOOGLE LLC, and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 2:25-cv-02025 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06859-LJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, known for consumer electronics, software and online services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary Martin Meyers, Esq. Justin Meyers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. MARTIN MEYERS, PC 35 West Main Street, Suite 106 Denville, NJ 07834 Phone: (973) 625-0838 Email: gmm@gmeyerslaw.com justin@gmeyerslaw.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading "Hide My Email" Feature ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Apple has failed to disclose that its Hide My Email feature, which purportedly conceals users' email addresses from third parties, does not work as advertised, given that any email address disguised by the feature can be unhidden by "almost anyone." The 40-page lawsuit asserts that although Apple advertises that Hide My Email generates a private, unique relay address that hides a user's actual email address from businesses and forwards incoming messages to their inbox, the feature is hampered by a vulnerability that allows practically anyone to link a Hide My Email alias to a real email address. The suit alleges that Apple, despite its brand identity as a company committed to user privacy, has been "fully aware" of the Hide My Email flaw for "over a year," thanks in part to a cybersecurity researcher, yet has not fixed the issue while continuing to represent to consumers that Hide My Email will actually hide their email addresses from third parties. The class action lawsuit accuses Apple of misleading millions of customers while profiting off its promises of privacy. "As of the filing of this Complaint, the vulnerability remains unremediated and Hide My Email continues to be sold as a core feature of Apple's privacy-protective ecosystem and of iCloud+ subscriptions," the case says. Hide My Email does not perform as advertised, class action lawsuit claims According to the class action lawsuit, Apple has spent significant amounts of money advertising its commitment to privacy, with slogans like "Privacy. That's Apple," and describing privacy as "a fundamental human right" and a "core value" of the company. As part of Apple's push to differentiate itself from competitors by focusing on user privacy, the tech giant introduced Hide My Email in 2019, with a paid version launched for iCloud+ in 2021, the suit says. Per the complaint, Hide My Email is available as a free feature for Apple users who sign into a participating webpage with their email address. The feature is included as a "core component" of a paid iCloud+ subscription, which allows a user to generate an unlimited number of private relay addresses, the case states. Ultimately, Hide My Email is touted as a layer of protection against spam emails, unwanted tracking, the sale of personal information to data brokers, and more. "Consumers use the feature to sign up for sensitive accounts and websites without linking them to their real identity, to avoid harassment, and to maintain their privacy, among other reasons," the complaint explains. "The value of the feature depends on one thing being true -- that the random alias cannot be traced back to the user's real email address." The lawsuit says that despite Apple's privacy representations, cybersecurity researchers have found that every email address purportedly hidden by Hide My Email can be unhidden in mere "moments," even by an ordinary person without insider access or privileges. In fact, independent testing found that 100 percent of the alias relay addresses were "exploitable," the suit says. Per the case, researchers first reported the flaw in June 2025, and while Apple acknowledged the report, the company "took no action for nearly a year" while continuing to represent that Hide My Email does what its name says. Researchers finally went public with information about the Hide My Email vulnerability in July 2026, after a year of "inaction" and "concealment" and no security update from Apple, the lawsuit claims. Apple continues to profit from misleading privacy claims, lawsuit says The class action suit alleges that despite the warning provided by researchers, Apple has failed to disable or pause the Hide My Email privacy feature, warn consumers about the vulnerability, or amend its representations of enhanced user privacy. According to the complaint, Hide My Email comes with every paid tier of iCloud+, which ranges from $0.99 per month to $59.99 per month, and is heavily marketed as a core feature of the service, with claims that a user's personal email address is kept private, that only a specific app or website can utilize the relay email address, and that Apple deletes relay messages "within seconds" of delivery. The suit argues that consumers increasingly consider privacy when making purchases, and Apple has wielded its supposedly enhanced privacy features as a "business advantage." As the case tells it, consumers paid for iCloud+ subscriptions based on Apple's misleading privacy claims, and Apple hardware buyers paid a premium price for products falsely marketed as have robust privacy protections. The lawsuit calls the consequences of Hide My Email's inoperability "serious," noting that once a user's real email address is exposed, it can be cross-referenced with public information to determine their name, location and other personal details, essentially defeating the purpose of the Hide My Email feature. "An essential function consumers paid for -- keeping the personal email address hidden and private -- did not work," the complaint stresses. Who is covered by the Apple class action lawsuit? The Apple class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who, within the applicable statute of limitation period, purchased an Apple product and/or an iCloud+ subscription and used the Hide My Email feature. How do I sign up for the Apple class action lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is initially filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, settlement class members will typically receive written notice of the deal via mail and/or email with instructions on any next steps and details about their legal rights. If you've purchased an Apple product and used the Hide My Email feature, or just want to stay informed about class action lawsuit and class action settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN] ARTIST GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Cole Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artist Group International, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Annie Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Artist Group International, LLC d/b/a Artist International, LLC, Dennis Arfa, Jarred Arfa, Case No. 158387/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts (NYLL Overtime)." Artist International Group -- https://www.artistinternationalgroup.com/ -- is a global entertainment company specializing in talent representation, film and television production, and media finance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Marc Ames, Esq. AKIN & SALAMAN, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Phone 212-825-1400 Email: Justin@akinlaws.com BAYOU TITLE INC: Aswell Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jason Aswell, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAYOU TITLE, INC., Case No. 875-442 was removed from the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01436-BSL-MBN. The Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 29, 2026, Defendant experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and extracted files containing sensitive Private Information. The Plaintiff further alleges the notorious ransomware group “Aurora” has claimed responsibility for the attack, and the following types of Private Information were compromised: name, Social Security number, address, contact information, and financial information (“Data Breach”).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerard J. Gaudet, Esq. Taylor P. Smith, Esq. ADAMS & REESE, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Phone: (504) 581-3234 Facsimile: (504) 566-0210 Email: gerard.gaudet@arlaw.com taylor.smith@arlaw.com BLANK ROME: Olmo Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Olmo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLANK ROME LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-04719 (E.D. July 7, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). As part of its business practices and in the course of litigation, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Upon information and belief, the victims of the Data Breach include current and former persons that were involved in a transaction or litigation handled by Blank Rome. On May 21, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals posed as Blank Rome IT employees and gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has not publicly disclosed the threat actor involved in the Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant, directly or indirectly, with the mutual understanding that Defendant would safeguard their Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and would implement sufficient cybersecurity safeguards to protect such information. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private information and failed to ensure that it would maintain adequate safeguards to protect Private Information. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a Notice Letter informing him that his personal information, including his name and Social Security number, were involved in the Data Breach. Blank Rome is a Philadelphia-based law firm that serves clients from its offices nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (215) 888-3214 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com BOWCOR INC: Hardin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowcor, Inc. The case is styled as Antonio Hardin, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bowcor, Inc. doing business as Special Explorers Center, Case No. 26CUB02629 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Bowcor, Inc. doing business as Special Explorers Center in Bakersfield, California -- https://specialexplorers.net/ -- offers a range of therapeutic services designed for children with special needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Woods, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: tyler.woods@wilshirelawfirm.com BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Block Drip-Pricing Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Laura Hettinger, Plaintiff, v. Bozzuto Management Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-3687 (JEB) (D.D.C.), Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification in a Memorandum Opinion, certifying two damages classes against Defendant over its utility-fee disclosure and billing practices. Plaintiff, a former tenant at a Defendant-managed property, alleged that Defendant's rental applications omitted mandatory utility service fees and variable water and sewer charges, and that some tenants were billed at rates exceeding the District's regulatory cap. The Court had earlier granted Plaintiff summary judgment on one subcount, holding that Defendant's failure to disclose utility fees at the application stage violated the Rental Housing Act and, in turn, the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiff sought certification of a Drip-Pricing Class, covering tenants charged undisclosed service fees or variable utility costs since December 5, 2020, and an Overcharge Class, covering tenants billed above the lawful per-1,000-gallon rate cap over the same period. She sought certification under both Rule 23(b)(2), for injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3), for damages. Defendant argued that nonparties, including the utility provider Conservice and the property owners, were required parties under Rule 19. The Court disagreed, finding Defendant adequately represented their interests and that Defendant's delay in raising the issue undercut its position. On standing, the Court held that Plaintiff, as a former tenant, lacked standing to pursue forward-looking injunctive relief and denied certification under Rule 23(b)(2) for both classes. It found, however, that Plaintiff and the class had standing for damages, reasoning that Defendant's late disclosure of fees reduced consumers' price sensitivity and led to systematically higher prices for all tenants, including those who had actual knowledge of the fees. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's earlier summary-judgment win barred certification under the one-way-intervention doctrine, noting Defendant itself had moved for summary judgment before the certification deadline, waiving that protection. Turning to Rule 23(a), the Court found the Drip-Pricing Class satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. It rejected Defendant's contention that varying pre-application disclosures defeated commonality, holding that the class theory turned on Defendant's uniform application omission, not what individual tenants separately learned. Damages, the Court found, could be calculated through common formulas without individualized mini-trials. The Court certified the Drip-Pricing Class under Rule 23(b)(3). As to the Overcharge Class, the Court rejected Defendant's fail-safe argument, adopting Plaintiff's revised class definition tied to the specific regulatory rate provisions rather than a bare finding of unlawfulness. The Court found the class satisfied Rule 23(a) and certified it under Rule 23(b)(3) as well, since common questions predominated and damages remained easily calculable. The Court ordered Defendant to produce the names and contact information of current and former tenants within the class periods by August 5, 2026, and ordered Plaintiff to file a notice plan by September 4, 2026. The Court declined to shift notice costs to Defendant, finding no departure from the standard rule was warranted given that other liability counts remained undecided. The Court thus granted Plaintiff's motions for class certification, appointment as class representative, and appointment of class counsel, while denying certification of any Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DI6mW7 from PacerMonitor.com BRINKER RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose De Jesus Ruiz Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL CORP., business entity of unknown nature; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2604412 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03733. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Final Wages not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in Violation of California Labor Codes and Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com C&M BAGELS: Soriano Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- GABINO SORIANO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C&M BAGELS, INC., MRA BAGELS INC., LOX OF BAGELS, INC., MAJ BAGELS INC. and CLAUDIO IACCARINO, Case No. 7:26-cv-05864 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, throughout the relevant six-year limitations period beginning in July 2020 and continuing through the remainder of his employment in or about August 2024, the Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation. During this period, the Plaintiff was paid, partly by check and partly in cash, at the rate of $1,320 per week straight time for all hours worked and worked 60 hours per week. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as class representative on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees who have been or were employed by Defendants between July 10, 2023, through the date that the opt-in period expires. The Defendant owns and operates a delicatessen and restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com C. HARPER FORD: Mento Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. Harper Ford, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Mento, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C. Harper Ford, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01468 (D.N.J., July 8, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. C. Harper Ford Inc. -- https://www.charperford.com/ -- is a reputable automotive dealership situated in Belle Vernon, PA, specializing in the sale of new and used Ford vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com CALIX INC: Faces Noor Securities Class Suit Over Misstatements -------------------------------------------------------------- Calix, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the Company faces Noor shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 27, 2026, a putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Noor v. Calix, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-04993-PCP (the Securities Class Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The action names the Company and certain of its current officers as defendants. It asserts federal securities law claims and alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's memory component supply and its impact on non-GAAP gross margins. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between Jan. 28, 2026, and April 21, 2026, inclusive. The putative class action seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the class, as well as an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Calix, Inc. is a communications technology company that provides cloud and software platforms, systems, and services to broadband service providers. It focuses on enabling customers to deploy and manage next-generation access networks and deliver improved broadband experiences to subscribers. CAREMARK PCS: Dismissal of Flowers Pharmacy Network Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of Kevin Flowers, on Behalf of Himself and Other Arkansans Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Caremark PCS Health, LLC, doing business as CVS Caremark; CaremarkPCS Pennsylvania Mail Pharmacy, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-3068 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Caremark’s motion to dismiss. Flowers filed a class action lawsuit against CaremarkPCS Health, LLC and CaremarkPCS Pennsylvania Mail Pharmacy, LLC, alleging that Caremark was unjustly enriched by failing to maintain an adequate pharmacy network required under Arkansas law. Flowers, an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan participant receiving prescription drug benefits administered by Caremark as a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM), alleged that Caremark violated Arkansas law by limiting where plan members could fill maintenance prescriptions. Flowers claimed Caremark required members to use CVS retail pharmacies or its mail-order service for prescriptions taken regularly for more than 90 days, which allegedly resulted in unjust enrichment. Flowers alleged that Caremark violated two Arkansas statutes. First, he claimed Caremark violated the Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-119(b)(2) (Mail Order Provision) by requiring plan members to fill maintenance prescriptions through Caremark-owned CVS retail pharmacies or its mail-order service. Second, he alleged Caremark violated the Ark. Code Ann. Section 23-92-505(a)(1)(A) (Network Adequacy Provision) by failing to provide a sufficiently accessible pharmacy network, forcing some members to pay out of pocket when using local pharmacies. Caremark moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Flowers failed to state a claim under the Mail Order Provision and that both Arkansas statutes were preempted by ERISA. The district court granted Caremark's motion to dismiss, and Flowers appealed. The Eighth Circuit explained that to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. It found that Flowers has failed to state a plausible claim that Caremark unjustly enriched itself by violating the Mail Order Provision and the Network Adequacy Provision. The Eighth Circuit rejected Flowers' claim that Caremark violated the Mail Order Provision, finding that the statute prohibits PBMs from requiring prescriptions to be filled only through home delivery services. Because Caremark allegedly allowed plan members to fill maintenance prescriptions either by mail or at CVS pharmacies, Flowers failed to plausibly allege a violation. The Eighth Circuit found Flowers' Network Adequacy Provision claim more complex but ultimately determined that he failed to plausibly allege a violation. It noted that Flowers appeared to argue Caremark violated the statute's Geographic Coverage Requirements requiring adequate access to in-network retail community pharmacies. However, the Court found that, aside from Caremark's requirement that members fill certain prescriptions through CVS pharmacies or by mail, Flowers alleged no facts showing that Caremark failed to maintain a reasonably adequate and accessible pharmacy network. The Eighth Circuit also rejected Flowers' argument that the Geographic Coverage Requirements were not subject to ERISA preemption because they did not require specific benefit payments or determine beneficiary status. It explained that these are only examples of state laws that may interfere with ERISA plans and that ERISA preemption may also apply to state laws affecting benefit plan structures in other ways. Geographic Coverage Requirements were preempted by ERISA and therefore unenforceable. Because Flowers' unjust enrichment claim was based on Caremark's alleged violation of those requirements, he failed to state a plausible claim. For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/UtmR2eZM8 CASELY INC: Meade Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH MEADE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASELY, INC., Case No. 26-2-09144-2 (Filed June 8, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma Division) on July 14, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05783 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Casely "routinely sends" and "spams" consumers with "mass marketing emails" to create a false sense of urgency as part of a "preplanned, preconceived marketing strategy" to "maximize sales." The Plaintiff alleges Casely violated CEMA and the WCPA by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading information in the subject lines. Casely, Inc. is founded in 2017 by siblings Emily and Mark Stallings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Strauss Borrelli PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. Cohenmalad, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter A. Talevich, Esq. Clara Virden, Esq. Joseph Wylie, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 E-mail: peter.talevich@klgates.com clara.virden@klgates.com joseph.wylie@klgates.com CATASTROPHE RESPONSE: Court Partially OKs Bid to Compel Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Carla M. Collins, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Catastrophe Response Unit USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 4:22-CV-1073-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Sherman Division), U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motions to compel discovery. Plaintiffs, former desk adjusters for Defendant, allege misclassification as independent contractors under the FLSA. Defendant filed two motions to compel discovery tied to a pre-motion discovery dispute over Plaintiffs' tax records, resumes, paystubs, and Facebook data belonging to Plaintiff Collins. The Court found most requests moot: resumes and paystubs had already been produced by all Plaintiffs except Rasheedah Mays, an unresponsive Plaintiff whose counsel has moved to withdraw. Mays was ordered to produce her resume by August 14, 2026. On tax documents, the Court held Plaintiffs could substitute IRS Wage and Income Transcripts for W-2 and 1099 forms since they contain equivalent data. It also ordered Plaintiffs to produce 2022 tax returns or transcripts, and pre-2022 returns to the extent reasonably obtainable, finding the records relevant to the independent-contractor analysis despite Defendant's delay in raising the issue. On Facebook data, the Court agreed Collins's social media activity during claimed work hours bears on the degree-of-control and hours-worked questions central to the case, and ordered her to produce what she can reasonably access, while permitting redaction or an "Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation for sensitive direct messages. The Court declined to order withdrawal of a discovery response Mays submitted through counsel, instructing Defendant to seek that information by interrogatory instead. It also warned that Mays's continued noncompliance could result in dismissal of her claims under Rule 41(b). A status conference is set for August 21, 2026,at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 7940 Preston Road, Courtroom 105, Plano, Texas 75024 and Defendant may apply for fees and expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). A copy of the Memorandum opinion and order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5khb5N from PacerMonitor.com CENTRO CANARIAS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. CENTRO CANARIAS FL LLC and NUEVO AMANECER CAFE LLC D/B/A NUEVO AMANECER CAFE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24701-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is, among other things, a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment. The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property in Miami-Dade County, Florida, including the parking areas, walkways and all areas open to the public. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff found the commercial property, and commercial restaurant within to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant that have each denied or diminished his ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, asserts the complaint. Centro Canarias FL LLC conducts business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com CHANEL INC: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Chanel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-03230-ECT-ECW (D. Minn., July 9, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.chanel.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website fail to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Chanel, Inc. offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, skirts, swimwear, perfume, jewelry, handbags, eyewear, makeup, skincare, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CHEMOCENTRYX INC: $69MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kroll Settlement Administration LLC issued a statement regarding Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., Case No. 4:21-CV-03343-JST pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION JONNIE HOMYK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHEMOCENTRYX, INC. et al., Defendants. Master File No. 4:21-cv-03343-JST and related case, No. 4:21-cv-04357 SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or the "Company") from November 26, 2019 through May 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that Class Representative Indiana Public Retirement System on behalf of itself and the Court-certified Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") for $69,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. The Action involves allegations that ChemoCentryx and its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Thomas J. Schall (together, "Defendants") violated the federal securities laws. Class Representative alleges that Defendants made material misrepresentations during the Class Period regarding ChemoCentryx's ADVOCATE study, the Company's Phase 3 clinical trial of avacopan, and the Company's communications with the FDA related to the approval of avacopan, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), that Schall controlled ChemoCentryx when the alleged misstatements were made, in violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that Schall sold ChemoCentryx stock while in possession of material non-public information about avacopan, in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Defendants deny all allegations in the Action and deny any violations of the federal securities laws.2 A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific time, before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Zoom videoconference, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 22% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $5 million should be approved. If you plan to attend the hearing, you should check the case website, www.ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com, to obtain information about how to access the Settlement Hearing and to confirm that no change to the date or time of the hearing has been made. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the case website, www.ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Class Action Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice"). You may obtain copies of the Settlement Notice and the Claim Form on the case website, www.ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com; by contacting the Claims Administrator at: ChemoCentryx Securities Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, P.O. Box 5013, New York, NY 10150-5013; by calling toll free 1-833-522-2606; or by emailing info@ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or online by no later than October 1, 2026. To submit a claim online, visit www.ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel or emailed to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are filed or postmarked no later than September 21, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. The Class was previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members previously had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class. There will not be a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings; however, if you previously requested exclusion, you may opt back into the Class by following the instructions in the Settlement Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to: ChemoCentryx Securities Litigation c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 5013 New York, NY 10150-5013 (833) 522-2606 info@ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com www.ChemoCentryxSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (800) 380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court CHESAPEAKE BAY HOLDINGS: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Bay Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Manuel Deguzman Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Bay Holdings LLC d/b/a Clearwater Healthcare Center, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0007956 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Chesapeake Bay Holdings LLC doing business as Clearwater Healthcare Center -- https://clearwaterhealthcare.com/ -- specialize in post-acute Rehabilitation and complex care needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 CHRISTIAN DIOR INC: Torres Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01861 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06904. The Plaintiff brings five causes of action on behalf of a putative class against Defendant for "Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act" ("CIPA"); "Violation of the Wiretap Act, Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act," (the "Wiretap Act"); "Violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act" ("CDAFA"); "Invasion of Privacy" under "Art. 1, § 1" of the California Constitution; and "Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq." ("UCL"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website, https://www.dior.com/ (the "Website"), causes third-party trackers and cookies to be installed on visitors' browsers, which intercept and collect visitors' IP addresses and other identifying and behavioral information without their consent or a court order.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wesley Sze, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 310 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650.849.5300 Email: wsze@gibsondunn.com CHW GROUP INC: Lamar Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHW Group, Inc. The case is styled as Dionnys Lamar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as: Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 0:26-cv-61861-EA (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as Choice Home Warranty -- https://www.choicehomewarranty.com/ -- offers coverage for common home repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER J. KOROLINSKY, P.A. 1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Ste. 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (877) 448-8404 Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com CI MUTUAL FUNDS: Court Awards Over $170MM in Damages to Investors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that on July 16, 2026, Justice Marcus Koehnen of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC Limited to pay Class Members damages and interest in excess of $170 million. The Market Timing class action, commenced in 2006, alleged that certain mutual fund managers permitted sophisticated offshore hedge fund investors to engage in frequent trading in their funds, that substantially diluted the investment of long-term investors, including retail unitholders, many of whom were retirees. Rochon Genova has represented the long-term investors since the inception of this case, including before the Supreme Court of Canada, on appeal from an earlier certification motion. The Supreme Court certified the case in 2013. A subsequent case management order divided the trial into two phases: a trial in respect of liability, and a subsequent trial in respect of damages. The liability trial was held in February, March and June 2022. On February 13, 2023, Justice Koehnen issued reasons for judgment in respect of the liability trial. Justice Koehnen found that both CI and AIC breached their duty of care to prevent "market timing" in their funds. The liability decision, indexed as Fischer v. IG Investment, 2023 ONSC 915, is available here. The damages trial was heard before Justice Koehnen between March 28 and May 16, 2025. Closing submissions were heard on July 30, August 6 and August 7, 2025. In total, Class Counsel spent 41 days in trial on liability (24 days) and damages (17 days).On June 16, 2026, Justice Marcus Koehnen of the Superior Court of Justice issued reasons for judgment in respect of the damages trial. The Court accepted the evidence of the Plaintiffs' expert, Professor Eric Zitzewitz, and determined that the "Next Day NAV method" of calculating damages was the appropriate methodology to use, as it measures the specific harm that the time zone arbitrage at issue caused, harm referred to as dilution. Justice Koehnen determined that the "profits method", the method of calculating damages advocated for by CI's expert, was not appropriate as it "measures the wrong thing". The Court determined that on a balance of probabilities, the "prerequisites of using the profits method" had not been met. Ultimately, with respect to CI, the Court awarded the Plaintiffs $60,480,000 in damages for the harm resulting from CI's failure to take appropriate steps to prevent market timing by certain Identified Accounts. The Court also awarded the Plaintiffs damages caused by specific Additional Accounts at CI that were identified by the Plaintiffs' expert, Professor Zitzewitz, as having engaged in market timing that harmed the unit holders. With respect to AIC, the Court awarded the Plaintiffs a total of $37,900,659 in damages, which includes damages caused by the Identified Accounts, and Additional Accounts at AIC that were identified by the Plaintiffs' expert as having engaged in market timing. The Court determined the Plaintiffs are also entitled to pre-judgment interest in the amount of 2.8% per annum, to be applied to the damages figures set out above, in addition to costs against both Defendants. Peter Jervis, a senior partner at Rochon Genova who led the prosecution of this case, stated: "The damages decision sends a clear message that those who fail to safeguard investors from harmful market practices will be held accountable. That this result was achieved after two decades of hard-fought litigation, is a testament to the perseverance of the Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, and to the strength of our judicial system in delivering access to justice in complex cases." Joel Rochon, the Managing Partner of Rochon Genova added: "The decision is an important victory not only for the Class Members, but for the integrity of Canadian capital markets. Mutual funds are a cornerstone of the retirement savings of millions of everyday Canadians, and investors are entitled to expect that fund managers will protect them from practices that unfairly dilute the value of their investments." The Plaintiffs in this action were represented by Peter Jervis, Joel Rochon, Sarah Fiddes and Jessica Marshall. [GN] COMHAR INC: Arbogast Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------- TINA ARBOGAST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMHAR, INC. d/b/a COMHAR, Defendant, Case No. 260701101 (Pa. Com. Pl., July 9, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On July 1, 2026, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as WorldLeaks accessed Defendant's computer network and then targeted and exfiltrated the private information of its current and former patients. The Plaintiff has since discovered that WorldLeaks has added Defendant to its dark web leak site, where her private information, including her highly sensitive medical records, may be posted for any nefarious actor to view, download, and use to commit crimes against Plaintiff and Class Members, including identity theft and fraud. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected private information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. COMHAR, Inc., d/b/a COMHAR, is an organization providing behavioral health services based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Barton Sues Over Contaminated Products -------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Barton, Daniel Levine, Sandi Morgan, Tucker Jaroll, Claire Schmitt, Anna Baltzer, and Randall Hartwright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-02364 (W.D. Wash., July 7, 2026), is brought against Defendant violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act due to the Defendant's failure to disclose its Orgain Organic Protein Powder (the "Contaminated Products") contain heavy metals. Costco sells the Contaminated Products in its stores and online. Though represented to have "quality ingredients and higher standards", and to provide "good clean fuel", and that Orgain is "relentless about quality," the Contaminated Products' representation is not true and is misleading, as the Contaminated Products are tainted with heavy metals which include lead, cadmium, and arsenic. The Defendant fails to disclose the Contaminated Products contain heavy metals. Nowhere at Costco's point-of-sale (webpages or in its retail stores) does it disclose to consumers that the Contaminated Products contain heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and arsenic (collectively, the "Omissions"). The packaging and the point-of-sale for the Contaminated Products contain misrepresentations and partial misstatements that contradict the presence of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic (collectively, the "Misrepresentations"). Defendant knew or, at a minimum, should have known, that the Contaminated Products it sells contained detectable levels of heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and arsenic, but chose to remain silent and sold the Contaminated Products anyway in its stores and online, in violation of its statutory duties. Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, could not learn of the inclusion of heavy metals in the Contaminated Products unless Costco included a proper disclosure, because identifying the presence of heavy metals requires expensive and sophisticated laboratory testing. But Costco failed to perform or require any heavy metal testing, or to disclose the presence of heavy metals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Orgain Organic Protein Powders. Costco operates 600 warehouse locations in the United States and sells Orgain Organic Protein Powder as a regular inventory item in its stores and online at Costco.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shelby Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier Catherine A. Peterson HECHT PARTNERS LLP 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone: (612) 778-9595 Email: rpeterson@hechtpartners.com kfreier@hechtpartners.com cpeterson@hechtpartners.com CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Bass Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case style CHADD ANDREW BASS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., a Delaware stock corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV495145, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07345 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay wages timely upon separation, illegal wage deductions, failure reimburse business expenses and unfair competition. Plaintiff Bass was employed by Cupertino in California subject to a collective bargaining agreement which governs wages, hours of work, and working conditions. Cupertino Electric is a privately owned electrical engineering and construction company headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Yvonne Arvanitis Fossati, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Email: Yvonne.Fossati@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com CYTODYN INC: $500,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announced proposed class action settlement on behalf of purchasers of CytoDyn Inc. common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022 (OTCQB: CYDY): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA BRIAN JOE COURTER, COURTER AND SONS LLC, DIANE M. HOOPER, THOMAS MCGEE, and CANDRA E. EVANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CYTODYN INC., NADER Z. POURHASSAN, MICHAEL MULHOLLAND, and SCOTT A. KELLY, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CytoDyn Inc. ("CytoDyn") between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, and were damaged thereby: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ("Court"), that the action ("Action") has been provisionally certified as a class action on behalf of the following class: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CytoDyn between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 18, 2026 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice") for the settlement. The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed on the website www.CytoDynSecuritiesSettlement.com. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Brian Joe Courter and Courter and Sons LLC ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants CytoDyn, Nader Z. Pourhassan, Michael Mulholland, and Scott A. Kelly (collectively, "Defendants") for 49 million shares of CytoDyn common stock and $500,000 in cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on November 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, either in person at the United States Courthouse, 1717 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, WA 98402, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things, whether: (i) for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class and Lead Plaintiff Brian Joe Courter and Courter and Sons LLC and Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP should be appointed as class representative and class counsel, respectively, for the Settlement Class; (ii) the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; and (iv) Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $300,000 (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website www.CytoDynSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the website for the Settlement, www.CytoDynSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at CytoDyn Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; by calling toll free 1-866-274-4004; or by sending an email to info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be found on Lead Counsel's website www.ktmc.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online via www.CytoDynSecuritiesSettlement.com, no later than September 21, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 12, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement. Excluding yourself from the Settlement Class is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 12, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: CytoDyn Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 1-866-274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net www.CytoDynSecuritiesSettlement.com All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. Joshua D'Ancona, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-610-667-7706 or Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 1-415-400-3000 info@ktmc.com DATED: June 18, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Western District of Washington DANAHER CORP: Hawkins Deal Gets Prelim OK; Derivative Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Danaher Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 26, 2026, dated July 20, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary approval to the Hawkins securities class suit settlement while the shareholder derivative suits are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On July 17, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, captioned Hawkins v. Danaher Corporation et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02055 (the Hawkins Action). The complaint, which was amended on Dec. 29, 2023, names the Company and certain of its current or former officers as defendants and asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It is purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the Company's securities between Jan. 27, 2022, and Oct. 23, 2023 (the Class Period), and alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's anticipated revenues for its bioprocessing business that allegedly artificially inflated the Company's stock price. Plaintiffs in the Hawkins Action seek, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Feb. 27, 2024, and on Aug. 4, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. Following the court's ruling, the parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve the matter, and based on the terms of that agreement, the Company recorded a settlement liability as well as an offsetting insurance receivable. On June 1, 2026, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final approval hearing for Sept. 3, 2026. The Company has disclosed that it does not expect the resolution of this litigation to have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or cash flows. In addition, in early 2024, putative shareholder derivative cases (relating to substantially the same factual allegations as those made in the Hawkins Action) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. These cases were consolidated and captioned "In re Danaher Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-00091-GBW" (the Derivative Action). On Nov. 10, 2025, the Derivative Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Beginning in March 2026, putative shareholder derivative cases (again relating to substantially the same factual allegations as those made in the Hawkins Action) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The outcomes of these proceedings remain uncertain, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Danaher Corp. is a global science and technology innovator that designs, manufactures, and markets professional, medical, industrial, and commercial products and services across a range of diagnostics, life sciences, and environmental and applied solutions businesses. It operates worldwide through multiple subsidiaries serving healthcare, laboratory, and industrial customers. DIN/CAL MANAGEMENT: Cummings Sues Over Unlawful Tenants Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHLEEN CUMMINGS, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIN/CAL MANAGEMENT, INC. and TDC MANAGEMENT CO., L.P., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03939-DMS-BJW (S.D. Cal., July 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violating numerous landlord tenant laws and consumer protection laws in the U.S., including the San Diego Mun. Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants charge their tenants fees, including "gas to heat water," "Valet Waste," and "Pest Control" ("Contested Fees"). The Contested Fees violate the implied warranty of habitability because these fees are used to shift Defendants' obligation to keep a unit habitable to Plaintiff and Class Members. If Defendants were allowed to shift such charges, the Defendants would absolve themselves of their obligations as a landlord to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. By deceptively labeling the Defendants' statutory habitability obligations as tenant-payable fees, the Defendants engage in a scheme to defraud tenants, including Plaintiff, by demanding them to pay charges that the law requires the landlord to bear as part of the ordinary cost of operating a rental property, asserts the complaint. The Defendants are large apartment developers, managers, owners, and landlords that own and/or operate many apartment units in San Diego and across California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Katherine Tuohy, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com katherine@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. Harrison Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com DOORDASH INC: Slawson Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JASON SLAWSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26 2-19283-9 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02500 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that DoorDash summarily deactivates the accounts of app-based workers, who perform services in Seattle, Washington. He brings a single cause of action for alleged violation of the City of Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code. DoorDash, Inc. is an American technology and logistics company that operates the largest food and convenience delivery platform in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: James Howard, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8336 E-mail: jimhoward@dwt.com - and - Elizabeth McCloskey, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3715 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 E-mail: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com - and - Michael Holecek, Esq. Alexander N. Harris, Esq. Timothy Kolesk, Esq. Erica L. Jansson, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: mholecek@gibsondunn.com aharris@gibsondunn.com tkolesk@gibsondunn.com ejansson@gibsondunn.com ECOLAB PRODUCTION: Berge Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Berge, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ECOLAB PRODUCTION LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2611839 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03740. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and failure to pay sick time wages. See generally Complaint. The Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, including, among other things, all wages, overtime and double wages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, statutory penalties (including waiting time penalties) expenses, injunctive and declaratory relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shareef S. Farag, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Matthew P. Eaton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: sfarag@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com meaton@bakerlaw.com ELANCO US: Dismissal of Vacation Buy Claims in Creason Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of CLAYTON W. CREASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELANCO US INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-1552 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's (1) denial of Creason's motion to remand the case to state court, (2) dismissal of certain claims on the pleadings, and (3) grant of summary judgment in favor of Elanco on the remaining claims. Creason worked as an engineer at Elanco US from November 2017 to November 2021. During his employment, employees with fewer than four years of service received three weeks of paid vacation annually and could participate in a vacation buy program for an additional week of paid leave by accepting a corresponding salary reduction. Creason participated in the program, reducing his salary by about $84 per week to cover the additional vacation week. Before leaving Elanco US in November 2021, Creason used all of his available paid vacation and additional leave earned through the vacation buy program. After his employment ended, he filed a lawsuit under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, Ind. Code Sections 22-2-5-0.5 to 22-2-5-3, alleging that Elanco improperly reduced his wages by about $84 per week through the program and seeking repayment of those amounts plus statutory penalties. Creason argued that Indiana law required his participation in the vacation buy program to be documented through a formal wage assignment that included notice of his right to rescind. Although he never sought to withdraw from the program, he filed a state court class action claiming Elanco violated Indiana wage laws. Elanco removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, where it prevailed. One immediate question: Why was the case properly in federal court after Elanco removed it under the CAFA? Although the requirements for CAFA jurisdiction were met, including the number of class members, amount in controversy, and minimal diversity, the Court noted that CAFA contains exceptions requiring federal courts to decline jurisdiction in certain cases. One such exception applies when most class members and a significant defendant are citizens of the state where the action was originally filed and the alleged injuries occurred in that state. The Seventh Circuit found that the CAFA home-state exception applied because the proposed class consisted of employees who worked for Elanco in Indiana, more than two-thirds of whom were likely Indiana citizens, and Elanco was also an Indiana citizen. It noted that the exception required the district court to decline jurisdiction but treated it as an abstention doctrine rather than a jurisdictional bar. However, because Creason waited too long to seek remand after discovery showed that the exception likely applied, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the remand request after substantial litigation had already occurred in federal court. The Seventh Circuit clarified that Creason's remand request was not denied because it was filed after the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). It agreed that CAFA does not impose the same deadline for seeking remand under the home-state exception, and a party may seek remand within a reasonable time. However, it found Creason's request untimely because he waited nearly a year after removal despite having information supporting remand. On the merits, the district court held that Elanco's vacation buy program did not involve an assignment of wages requiring a written agreement and rescission notice under Indiana law. The Seventh Circuit noted that wage assignments generally involve directing wages to another party, such as a creditor or insurer, and the statute's listed examples did not include a program like Elanco's vacation buy arrangement. The Seventh Circuit rejected Creason's argument that Indiana's wage assignment statute should be broadly applied to cover Elanco's vacation buy program. It explained that the statute applies to wage deductions, but Elanco did not deduct or set aside any portion of Creason's pay. Instead, Creason voluntarily agreed to receive a lower weekly salary in exchange for an additional week of vacation, meaning Elanco simply paid the reduced wage agreed upon by the parties. The Seventh Circuit also considered whether Creason was entitled to payment for unused vacation hours remaining when his employment ended. It noted that Indiana law does not require employers to pay for unused vacation time unless the employer has agreed to do so, in which case the employer must honor that agreement as it would any other wage obligation. The Seventh Circuit then held that Creason was not entitled to payment for unused vacation hours remaining after his resignation. Although Indiana law requires employers to pay unused vacation time when they have agreed to do so, Elanco's policy excluded unused COVID-19 rollover vacation hours from cash payout upon termination. Because Creason had used his regular 2021 vacation time and only had non-payable rollover hours remaining, he was not entitled to additional compensation. The Court also found that the district court improperly dismissed Creason's class certification motion as moot before addressing it. It said class certification was not automatically moot simply because Creason's claims failed, as a class action may still be denied or decided on the merits. However, the Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed Elanco's victory on all claims. Still, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Creason would not be an appropriate class representative because his request to certify a class despite his unsuccessful claims would harm the interests of other workers. Although the district court incorrectly treated class certification as moot, denying class certification was ultimately the correct result. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/J1I7GD0Cg EQUIFAX INC: Credit Inquiry Class Suits Reach Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equifax Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from consumer credit class suits in the federal courts of the United States. The Company has been named as a defendant in four related class action lawsuits pending in federal courts across the United States concerning inquiry disputes on consumers' credit files. In January 2026, it and the plaintiffs attorneys who filed these lawsuits reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims at issue on a nationwide, class-wide basis. The parties have filed a notice of settlement with one federal court and expect to provide the same notice in the other pending lawsuits. The Company states that, if the final terms of a settlement agreement cannot be agreed upon, or if the settlement is not ultimately approved by the court, it believes it has valid defenses to each of these actions and will continue to defend against them. It further discloses that it accrued an estimate of $30.0 million related to these matters in the fourth quarter of 2025. This accrual represents its best estimate of the liability related to a global settlement of these matters. Equifax Inc. is a global data, analytics, and technology company that provides credit reporting, risk assessment, and information solutions to businesses and consumers. It operates in North America and internationally through a range of information services, workforce solutions, and global consumer credit reporting businesses. ERNST & YOUNG: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Ernst & Young data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Ernst & Young data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Ernst & Young Security Incident: What Happened? Ernst & Young (EY), a "Big Four" accounting firm based in London with a large United States presence, has disclosed a data breach potentially impacting personal and financial information. According to a sample notice submitted to the California Attorney General's Office, which can be seen below, EY detected anomalous activity on the third-party information technology platform it uses to support tax-related work for clients on April 23, 2026. After an investigation with an independent security firm, EY determined that between March 28, 2026 and April 12, 2026, an unauthorized party accessed this third-party platform and downloaded documents about a number of EY clients. A report filed with the Vermont Attorney General's Office on July 16, 2026 relays that the EY data breach may have impacted Social Security numbers, financial account codes and credit and debit account information. At the time this post was made, the total number of individuals affected by the Ernst & Young data breach had not been publicly disclosed. What You Can Do After the Ernst & Young Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Ernst & Young data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Ernst & Young to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] EXECUTIVE SECURITY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON SINGLETON, individually and on behalf of all other employees v. EXECUTIVE SECURITY, Corporation; inclusive, Case No. 26TRCV02492 (July 10, 2026) is a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code for Defendant's: (i) failure to provide employment records; (ii) failure to pay overtime and double time; (iii) failure to provide rest and meal periods; (iv) failure to pay minimum wage; (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11050(5)(A); (vii) failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations 11050(4)(C); (viii) failure to pay all wages earned on time; (ix) failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; (x) failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; (xi) failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; (xii) failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code. The Aggrieved Employees worked for the Defendant as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees. The Defendant operates as a security services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com FAIRLIFE LLC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Fairlife LLC data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Fairlife data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Fairlife Security Incident: What Happened? The Coca-Cola Company has disclosed a data breach affecting its subsidiary, Fairlife, in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 16, 2026. In the SEC filing, Coca-Cola announced that it had detected unauthorized access to a portion of Fairlife's systems, including those related to production, in connection with a ransomware event. Upon identifying the issue, the beverage corporation notified law enforcement and launched an investigation with cybersecurity experts, which is currently ongoing. Coca-Cola also published a notice on its website announcing the breach and noting that U.S. production operations at Fairlife were temporarily suspended as a result of the incident. At the time this post was made, Coca-Cola had not disclosed the nature of the information affected by the Fairlife data breach, nor had it indicated which individuals might be impacted. Fairlife, a dairy company specializing in ultra-filtered milk, was fully acquired by Coca-Cola in January 2020 after nearly a decade of partial ownership. What You Can Do After the Fairlife Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Fairlife data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Fairlife to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] FEDEX GROUND: Abeyta Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Denise Abeyta, Alonso Repetto, and Raul Bouchard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. and FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03029 (D. Colo., July 7, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, mandatory penalties under the Colorado Constitution art. XVIII, Section 15, the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), C the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS Order") (collectively, "Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law"). This case challenges the Defendants' long-standing policy of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked. Specifically, the Defendants instituted a policy of requiring its employees to wait in line and pass a security screening before clocking-in for the day. Similarly, the Defendants instituted a policy of requiring its employees to wait in line and pass a security screening after clocking-out for the day. the Defendants' conduct violates Colorado law because the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum wage and overtime compensation for all time worked as required by the Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for FedEx in Commerce City, Colorado from October 2025 to December 2025 as a package handler. FedEx is one of the nation's leading providers of shipping services to individuals and businesses in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com FIELDING GRADUATE: Suit Balks at Denied Disability Accommodations ----------------------------------------------------------------- RON STECKLY, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. FIELDING GRADUATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:26-cv-07529 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2026) is a civil rights and consumer-protection action arising from Defendant's treatment of Plaintiff Steckly, a Jewish doctoral student with disabilities pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fielding subjected him to a hostile educational environment on the basis of his Jewish identity, excluded him from educational opportunities after he raised concerns about antisemitism, denied him disability accommodations, retaliated against him, and misrepresented both its legal authorization to operate and the credentials of its faculty. The Plaintiff further alleges that several of Fielding's policies -- including its refusal to permit part-time enrollment, its flat-tuition model, and its "Problems in Professional Competency" policy -- operate to exclude and to overcharge students with disabilities. The Plaintiff brings those disability-based claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated students with disabilities. Accordingly, it has done so in Washington State and in British Columbia, Canada, without the authorizations required by those jurisdictions, exposing its students -- including Plaintiff -- to the risk that their coursework and credentials would be invalid. The Plaintiff is a Jewish individual who resides in Fresno County, California. Throughout the period of his enrollment at Fielding, Plaintiff resided in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and traveled to California, Washington, and New York to attend the program's required in-person sessions, including the in-person residential orientation held in Santa Barbara, California. The Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. Fielding operates the only fully distributed-learning doctoral program in clinical psychology in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com FIESTA INSURANCE: Garcia Sues Over Alleged Data Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- LETICIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIESTA INSURANCE FRANCHISE CORPORATION d/b/a FIESTA INSURANCE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02161 (D. Nev., July 16, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of its consumers, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Fiesta Insurance's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect PII/PHI information. Fiesta Insurance learned about the cybersecurity incident on June 9, 2025, on or around June 9, 2026, its computer network was hacked and on July 13, 2026 Fiesta began notifying its consumers about the incident, more than a year after the Data Breach was discovered, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and a victim of data security beach. Fiesta Insurance is a multi-state franchise network that brokers insurance from third-party carriers and directly provides tax-preparation services through its local storefronts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email:lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Gregory Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gmullens@stranchlaw.com -and- Cassandra Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: cmiller@straussborrelli.com FIGURE LENDING: Nouri Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lukas Nouri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIGURE LENDING LLC, and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU030122C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03872-BJC-JAC. The Plaintiff asserts violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: rharlow@orrick.com FIRST BANK: Mozafari Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hamidreza Mozafari, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FIRST BANK, a Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01574121-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01745. The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime; Failure to Authorize and Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Violation of Labor Code Section 204; Violation of Labor Code Section 203; Illegal Wage Deductions; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Patrick T. Cain, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com patrick.cain@ogletree.com FIRST IN RESCUE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FIRST IN RESCUE SAFETY AND TRAINING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case 4:26-cv-05648 (S.D. Tex., July 16, 2026) is a class action complaint seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, First In employs a timekeeping policy that records only the hours a worker spends at the client site and the time spent before departure from the company shop and after return to the shop is not recorded and is not reflected in employee pay. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff Garcia and the similarly situated field employees overtime compensation for pre-shift, post-shift, and after-hours work time that was integral and indispensable to their principal job activities. Plaintiff Garcia worked for First In as a non-exempt, overtime-eligible hourly employee from April 2023 to June 2026. First In Rescue is a provider of industrial rescue, confined-space safety, firefighting training, and related safety services to industrial clients across Texas and across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Must not Retain Tariff Refund, Bullock Says ------------------------------------------------------- JASON BULLOCK, individually and as representative of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-12335-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 9, 2026) is a class action seeking restitution, damages, declaratory relief, and equitable relief arising from Ford's decision to pass tariff-related costs onto consumers through higher vehicle prices while subsequently retaining, or planning to retain, the corresponding government refund or credit for itself after the tariffs were invalidated. Beginning in February 2025, the U.S. Government implemented a set of sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The IEEPA tariffs affected imports from nearly all of America's trading partners across the globe. And over the course of the year the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, importers paid an estimated $182 billion in IEEPA tariff fees. In May 2025, reporting revealed that Ford began raising prices throughout its lineup as a direct response to the IEEPA tariffs. At the same time, Ford began increasing what it terms "destination fees," which further allowed it to pass IEEPA tariff costs onto consumers by increasing the cost of buying new vehicles without appearing to raise the price of the vehicles themselves. Plaintiff Bullock brings this action to require Ford to disgorge and restore the tariff-related amounts it passed through to consumers, to prevent Ford from retaining the $1.3 billion IEEPA-related benefit at consumers' expense, and to obtain all other relief available by law. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Troy Brown, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com tbrown@tzlegal.com - and - Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2515 Jay Ave, First Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 423-6599 E-mail: fbartela@tzlegal.com pbrickman@tzlegal.com FREDERICK BRANDON FREEDOM: Genao Files Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frederick Brandon Freedom Williams, et al. The case is styled as Antonio Genao, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Frederick Brandon Freedom Williams, The State Of New York, Case No. 452876/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Torts - (Personal Injury Tort)." Frederick Brandon "Freedom" Williams is an American rapper, singer and songwriter.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENERAL MOTORS: Continues to Defend Class Suits in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ General Motors Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from several transmissions and 2015 to 2022 model year-related class actions in the U.S. and Canada. The Company is facing one putative class action and one certified class action in the United States alleging that various 2015 through 2022 model year vehicles are defective because they are equipped with faulty 8-speed transmissions. The actions contend that these transmission defects affect multiple vehicle models across those years and seek to represent owners and lessees of the affected vehicles. In March 2023, in the class action concerning 2015 through 2019 model year vehicles, the judge overseeing the case certified 26 state subclasses. The Company appealed that certification order. In June 2025, the Sixth Circuit decertified all 26 state subclasses and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings, where the case remains pending. The putative class action concerning 2020 through 2022 model year vehicles is pending before a different judge who has not yet addressed class certification. The Company also has similar cases pending in Canada concerning these vehicles. It is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible or probable material loss or range of loss that may result from these proceedings in excess of immaterial amounts already accrued. In addition to the transmission class actions, there are several putative class actions that have been filed against the Company, including in the U.S. and Canada, arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. In March 2023, a U.S. court overseeing one of the putative class actions issued a final judgment in favor of the Company on all claims in eight states at issue in that proceeding. In August 2023, the same U.S. court granted class certification as to a Louisiana claim but denied certification as to seven other states. At this stage of these proceedings, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the amounts or range of reasonably possible material loss. General Motors Co. is a leading global automotive manufacturer headquartered in Detroit, designing, building, and selling vehicles and related services under brands including Chevrolet, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac. It operates worldwide and is increasingly focused on electric and autonomous vehicle technologies. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Coolant Leak Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jonathan Dixon filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC. Why: Dixon claims General Motors sold certain Chevrolet, GMC and Buick vehicles with an engine defect that causes coolant to leak. Where: The GM class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims certain Chevrolet, GMC and Buick vehicles have an engine defect that causes coolant to leak — a defect General Motors knew about when leasing or selling the vehicles. Plaintiff Jonathan Dixon filed the class action complaint against General Motors on June 26 in Georgia federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the engine defect causes coolant to leak from the radiator hose connections early within the warranty period and the vehicles' useful life. "Coolant loss leads to engine overheating, reduced engine power/limp mode events, sudden engine disablement and/or catastrophic engine damage," the GM class action lawsuit says. Dixon says he purchased a new 2024 Chevrolet Colorado in March 2024. In February 2026, he says his vehicle experienced the defect when the check engine light illuminated and the vehicle exhibited a metal-on-metal grinding noise at slow speed. Dixon claims he paid $489.36 out of pocket for repairs because the defect was not covered by GM's warranty. Lawsuit claims GM knew about engine defect Dixon alleges the vehicles are equipped with a closed, sealed liquid engine cooling system in which coolant is intended to circulate continuously between the engine and the radiator in a contained loop to regulate operating temperature and prevent overheating. However, he claims the cooling system suffers from a design and/or manufacturing defect in the radiator hose quick-connect interface, causing coolant to leak from the radiator hose connections early within the warranty period and the vehicles’ useful life. Dixon claims GM knew about the defect prior to the sale of the first class vehicle but did not warn consumers about it, nor has it provided an adequate remedy, rendering GM's marketing of the vehicles false and misleading. The class vehicles affected by the alleged defect include model years 2023–2026 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon equipped with the L3B 2.7L turbocharged four-cylinder engine, model years 2024–2026 Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia and model years 2025–2026 Buick Enclave equipped with the LK0 2.5L turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Dixon is suing GM for allegedly failing to honor warranties, concealing known product defects and violating federal warranty law and Georgia consumer protection laws. He seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In another GM lawsuit, three consumers allege GM sold Equinox, Terrain and Envision vehicles with a defective brake vacuum pump system and hid the defect, putting profits over safety. The plaintiff is represented by H. Clay Barnett III, W. Daniel Miles III, James Mitchell Williams, Dylan T. Martin and Trenton H. Mann of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles P.C. The GM class action lawsuit is Dixon v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00217-RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. [GN] GH HOSPITALITY: De La Torre Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DE LA TORRE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, NAYELI VERENICE FLORES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GH HOSPITALITY GROUP US, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALMA COCINA DE MEXICO, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21811 (Cal. Super. July 10, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime compensation in violation of the Labor Code. Plaintiff De La Torre is a California resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as an hourly, non-exempt Server from approximately June 2024 to approximately October 2025. Plaintiff Flores is a California resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as an hourly, non-exempt Sous Chef from approximately 2022 to approximately June 2024. The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Won Christina Chang, Esq. Yasmeen Abushahla, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com christina.chang@thesentinelfirm.com yasmeen.abushahla@thesentinelfirm.com GLUCOBIT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Delong Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY DELONG, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. GLUCOBIT, INC., d/b/a REFRAME, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03821-AT (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers of Defendant, the putative Class members. On June 30, 2026, the Defendant emailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the personally identifiable information compromised in the data breach included certain personal information of Defendant's customers, including Plaintiff's. The complaint alleges that the data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Glucobit Inc. d/b/a Reframe is a technology company with its principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Autorenewal Class Action for $7.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that California consumers who paid for at least one renewal term of a YouTube TV subscription using YouTube billing between Feb. 1, 2017, and Oct. 29, 2021, may qualify to submit a claim for approximately $92.26 from a class action settlement. Google LLC and YouTube LLC agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the companies did not comply with California's automatic renewal law when selling YouTube TV subscriptions. Who can file a claim for a YouTube settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They enrolled in and paid for at least one renewal term of a YouTube TV subscription between Feb. 1, 2017, and Oct. 29, 2021. -- They purchased the subscription directly through YouTube billing, not the Apple app store, for personal, family or household purposes. -- They lived in California at the time of their subscription renewal. Are there any exclusions? The following individuals are not eligible to participate in this settlement: -- Anyone who subscribed to YouTube TV through iOS-based mobile applications from Apple's app store -- Individuals who canceled their YouTube TV subscriptions during a free trial period -- Subscribers who received a full refund from Google or YouTube How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund estimated at $92.26. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: YouTube TV Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 25191, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 The claim deadline is Aug. 30, 2026. Required claim information -- All class members must provide the email address and/or phone number linked to the YouTube TV account on the claim form. -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- ACH transfer -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for mailed claims) Settlement fund breakdown The $7,500,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $250,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,500,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $425,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $15,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 30, 2026 -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 30, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 15, 2026 When is the YouTube TV settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 105 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged Google LLC and YouTube LLC did not fully comply with California's automatic renewal law when selling YouTube TV subscriptions. The plaintiff claimed the law requires companies to provide certain disclosures before automatically renewing subscriptions. Google and YouTube denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and uncertainty of further litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $92.26 (estimated) Deadline: August 30, 2026 [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Sued Over Alleged Use of Books to Train Gemini AI ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt G. Southern of Search Engine Journal reports that publishers and novelist Scott Turow are suing Google over books used to train Gemini. The complaint says the works were supplied for search and sales, not for AI training. Blocking AI crawlers would not have covered either route the complaint describes. Publishers allege works supplied to Google Books, Play Books and Scholar were used to train Gemini without permission. No court has ruled on the claims. Three publishers, novelist Scott Turow, and his company S.C.R.I.B.E. have filed a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Google of copying millions of books and journal articles to train Gemini. This includes works provided through Google Books, Play Books, and Scholar. On July 10, Hachette Book Group, Cengage Learning, Elsevier, Turow, and S.C.R.I.B.E. joined together in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with the Association of American Publishers announcing it on the same day. They argue that the books and articles supplied to these services were meant for specific purposes, and using them to train a commercial AI model was not one of those. The lawsuit also claims that Google copied works it obtained from web scrapes, including from pirate sites and paywalled libraries. Google hasn't commented on the complaint as of publication, and no court has ruled on any of the claims. The main question is whether permission for one use also covers training a model on that data. What The Complaint Alleges The complaint brings four counts. Three allege unauthorized reproduction under the Copyright Act, covering Google Books and other Google services, web scraping downloads, and copying during training. The fourth alleges Google removed copyright management information in violation of the DMCA. The plaintiffs are asking for damages, an injunction, a detailed account of the works Gemini used for training, and court orders to delete any unauthorized copies. The filing quotes what it describes as internal Google documents, one of which called using books from Google Play Books for AI as "highly problematic for Google," with potential fines from "$10Bs-$100Bs." It attributes another line to Gemini's lead engineer, who it says told colleagues, "we don't do deals for data we already have or already possess." None of these documents are public, and the quotes come from the plaintiffs' filing. Where Crawler Controls Stop Google-Extended is the robots.txt token that covers content Google crawls from your site. It restricts whether that content can be used for future Gemini training and some grounding uses. Neither of the two sourcing methods discussed here involves that token. The books were supplied directly to Google via agreements, so a robots.txt file does not affect this process. The web-scraping claims refer to copies that, according to the complaint, appeared in Common Crawl after being hosted on pirate sites and subscription libraries. Since these copies are hosted on different domains, a robots.txt file cannot regulate them. On June 25, Google published a policy paper arguing that training on public web data is a "transformative, non-expressive use" under fair use protections. The paper also mentions machine-readable controls, like Google-Extended, which websites can use to opt out. However, the material examined here allegedly arrived through different channels. Last month, Digital Content Next sent a cease and desist letter to the Common Crawl Foundation, asserting that copyright law does not operate as an opt-out system. Why This Matters The permission question and the fair-use question are separate concerns. Fair use can apply even if no agreement authorized the use, and the complaint doesn't settle either issue. Your crawler settings are a smaller factor than this situation might imply. In January, BuzzStream data indicated that 79% of top news sites block at least one AI training bot, which is the channel Google-Extended addresses. The two groups of copies analyzed here allegedly came through routes that those settings don't affect. Looking Ahead In 2025, two Northern California rulings found the training uses at issue fair on the records before them. The Anthropic court denied summary judgment on pirated central-library copies, while the Meta judge stressed his decision was specific to those plaintiffs and their record. The publishers said they filed in New York after initially planning to intervene in the ongoing In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation in California, and that the new suit preserves claims they believe fall outside that proposed class. The next step is Google's response, either an answer or a dismissal motion. [GN] GREENBRIER HOTEL: Rouse FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin W. Rouse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Greenbrier Hotel Corporation, TAC IT America Corp., Case No. 25-C-598 was removed from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00441 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Greenbrier Hotel Corporation -- https://www.greenbrier.com/ -- operates The Greenbrier, a 1778 National Historic Landmark luxury resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Christopher Hedges, Esq. David H. Carriger, Esq. L. Dante DiTrapano, Esq. THE CALWELL PRACTICE Law and Arts Center West 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Phone: (304) 343-4323 Fax: (304) 344-3684 Email: chedges@cldlaw.com dcarriger@cldlaw.com dditrapano@cldlaw.com - and - W. Jesse Forbes, Esq. FORBES LAW OFFICES 1118 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 343-4050 Fax: (304) 343-7450 Email: wjforbes@forbeslawwv.com The Defendants are represented by: Ronald H. Hatfield, Jr., Esq. 37 Campbell Avenue SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Phone: (540) 759-2616 Email: ron.hatfield@bluestone-coal.com - and - Emily Ford, Esq. THOMAS COMBS & SPANN 300 Summers Street, Suite 1380 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 414-1800 Fax: (304) 414-1801 Email: eford@tcspllc.com - and - M. David Griffith , Jr. THOMAS COMBS & SPANN P. O. Box 3824 Charleston, WV 25338-3824 Phone: (304) 414-1800 Fax: (304) 414-1801 Email: dgriffith@tcspllc.com HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Wells Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Margaretha Wells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC; and DOES I through IO, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2604412 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07332. On May 14, 2026, the Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint alleging eight causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Reiko Furuta, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-521 Email: rfuruta@seyfarth.com HAMILTON HEALTH: Waters-Rain Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Health Center, Inc. The case is styled as Milan Waters-Rain, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Hamilton Health Center, Inc., Case No. 251001153 (M.D. Pa., July 7, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hamilton Health Center -- https://www.hamiltonhealthcenter.com/ -- is the only Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Dauphin County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com HCA HEALTHCARE: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to M.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled JANE DOE, JANET DOE, and JILL DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., and URGENT CARE ENTERPRISE, LLC, d/b/a CARENOW, Defendants, Case No. 26C1744, was removed from the Tennessee Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial District, Davidson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned Case 3:26-cv-00993 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from alleged disclosures of protected health information through online appointment-scheduling and patient-portal technologies and violations of the the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants shared patients' appointment status, appointment time and date, provider information, patient status, and personally identifying information with Google and other third-party marketing and advertising companies without the knowledge, authorization, or consent of the patients. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. is a Nashville, Tennessee-based urgent care healthcare provider which owns and operates clinics the U.S. The Defendants are represented by: W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq. Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq. Taylor M. Sample, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 21 Platform Way South, Suite 3500 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 Email: bphillips@bassberry.com kwalker@bassberry.com taylor.sample@bassberry.com HOT TOPIC INC: Gallo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Thomas Gallo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hot Topic Inc, Case No. 26-00002-09007-1 was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05743-BHS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Hot Topic, Inc. -- https://www.hottopic.com/ -- is an American fast-fashion company specializing in counterculture-related clothing and accessories, as well as licensed music.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart St., Ste 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: brook@emeryreddy.com - and - Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC (CA) 333 University Ave., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP (SAN FRANCISCO) 71 Stevenson St., Ste 400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 Phone: (424) 204-4400 Email: brooksm@ballardspahr.com HSBC BANK: Judgment Dismissing Rubino Complaint Entered on Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of John Rubino et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., Appellants-Respondents, Index No. 650001/22, Appeal No. 7003, Case No. 2025-04489 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, modified the lower court's order by granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred and directed entry of judgment dismissing the action. The Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), had previously ruled on the Defendants' motion to dismiss. It allowed some claims to move forward, including the Plaintiffs' claims that the Defendants violated Real Property Law Section 275 and RPAPL Section 1921(1) and (4) and their proposed class action claims under RPAPL Section 1921(4). However, the court dismissed other claims, including the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims and Beverly Guity's individual statutory claims involving her first mortgage loan. The Appellate Division changed that decision. It ruled that all of the Plaintiffs' claims were filed too late and were time-barred. It therefore granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint and directed the clerk to enter judgment in the Defendants' favor. Because the case was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the Court did not need to decide the remaining appeal issues. The Appellate Division explained that the Plaintiffs' statutory claims were subject to CPLR 214(2)'s three-year statute of limitations because they sought only statutory penalties created by Real Property Law Section 275(1) and RPAPL Section 1921(1). It also found that their putative class action claims were untimely and were not preserved under the American Pipe tolling rule because they filed a successive class action rather than individual claims after voluntarily dismissing their federal action. The Court further held that CPLR 205(a) did not toll the claims because the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their prior actions. Accordingly, it ruled that the complaint should have been dismissed as time-barred. However, the Appellate Division held that the lower court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims because they were duplicative of the statutory claims, as they were based on the same alleged wrongdoing and sought the same relief. It also found that the breach of contract claims did not extend the statute of limitations because they were based on statutory duties and did not impose any separate or independent obligations on the Defendants beyond those required by law. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at https://lnk.ua/TWBN1y1MK. Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (Sean C. McPhee -- smcphee@phillipslytle.com -- of counsel), for HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), appellants-respondents. Reed Smith LLP, New York (David G. Murphy -- dmurphy@reedsmith.com -- of counsel), for PHH Mortgage Corporation, appellant-respondent. Tusa PC, Southold (Joseph S. Tusa -- joseph.tusapc@gmail.com -- of counsel), for respondents-appellants. INNS MANAGEMENT: Rangel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Rangel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. THE INNS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00812-MHW-SCS (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2026), is brought for failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly direct care employees worked more than forty (40) hours in one or more workweek(s). During their employment with Defendant, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly direct care employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required a 30-minute meal break to be taken from their compensable hours worked even when they were unable to take a fully uninterrupted, bona fide meal break of 30 minutes. Although Defendant required a daily 30-minute meal break to be taken, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly direct care employees were often unable to take a fully uninterrupted, bona fide meal break of 30 minutes or otherwise took a shortened meal break because their break was interrupted with substantive job duties. As a result of Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice requiring a 30-minute meal break to be taken from their hourly, non-exempt direct care employees' compensable hours worked for meal breaks that were not taken at all or that were shortened/interrupted by substantive work duties, Named Plaintiff and other hourly, non-exempt direct care employees were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all of hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a direct care employee in the role of Licensed Practical Nurse at Whitewood Village in North Canton, Ohio from 2011 to March 2025. The Defendant owns and operates 14 assisted living communities throughout Northeast and Central Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Brownlee Suit Transferred to D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gayle Brownlee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instructure Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-04452 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on July 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00627-RJS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Instructure Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.instructure.com/ -- is an educational technology company based in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Doe Suit Alleges Data Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. No. 2:26-cv-7812 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect personally identifiable information of its employees against unauthorized disclosure. On or around June 18, 2026, cybercriminal group ShinyHunters announced that it exfiltrated 2.7 million records and other internal corporate data from InterCon and gave InterCon a June 22 deadline to pay a ransom. The Plaintiff is an employee of InterCon who received emails from an individual purporting to be ShinyHunters on July 1, 2026, and July 4, 2026. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. is a provider of tailored a security services to Fortune 500 companies, public utilities, ultra-high net worth individuals, non-profit organizations in the U.S. and around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: SIS Antitrust Class Suit Trial Set for Sept. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California sets a trial date for the SIS antitrust class suit trial on Sept. 14, 2027. On May 10, 2021, Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. ("SIS") filed a complaint in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust claims against the Company relating to EndoWrist service, maintenance, and repair processes. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and discovery has commenced. The Company filed an answer denying the antitrust allegations and filed counterclaims against SIS. The counterclaims allege that SIS violated the Federal Lanham Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law and that SIS is also liable to the Company for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference with Contract. The parties filed summary judgment motions, and the Court held a hearing on these motions on Sept. 7, 2023. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part both Intuitive's and plaintiff's motions for summary judgment. Trial in this matter commenced on Jan. 6, 2025. On Jan. 28, 2025, after the close of both plaintiff's and Intuitive's cases in chief, the Court found in Intuitive's favor on all of SIS’s antitrust claims and stayed Intuitive's counterclaims. On Feb. 27, 2025, SIS filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. SIS filed its brief on July 23, 2025. The Company filed its response brief on October 29, 2025. SIS filed its reply brief on Dec. 26, 2025. Oral argument took place on June 25, 2026. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. Three class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the Company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The Court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now captioned on the Larkin docket as "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint has been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On Jan. 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On Jan. 18, 2022, the Company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on Sept. 7, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues and denied Intuitive’s motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the Court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to EndoWrist instruments and, in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the Court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. It also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The Court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the Court granted Intuitive's motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the Court’s March 31, 2024, Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist instrument repair and replacement and Intuitive’s market power in such a market. On March 31, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. It entered a scheduling order setting trial for Sept. 14, 2027. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. Intuitive Surgical Inc. is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets robotic-assisted surgical systems, instruments, and accessories, including the da Vinci Surgical System. It provides its products and services to hospitals and health care providers worldwide. JM WIRELESS: Faces Camacho Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- LISA CAMACHO, FREDY VIVAR, and STEVEN VALCOURT, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JM WIRELESS LLC, Defendant, Case 1:26-cv-06024 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2026) is a class action and collection complaint arising from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant maintained common payroll, timekeeping, scheduling, commission, uniform, expense, and wage-statement policies applicable to hourly retail employees which failed to compensate work performed before clock-in, after clock-out, during interrupted meal breaks, and after scheduled closing, and failed to include non-discretionary commissions in the regular rate used to calculate overtime premiums. JM Wireless operates a chain of retail mobile-telephone stores under the "Metro by T-Mobile" banner in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. 220 9th Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 2049 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (833) 729-3247 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com KALSHI INC: Installs Trackers Without Consent, Vazquez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN VAZQUEZ, ALEXANDER FOLEY, and NICHOLAS ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KALSHI INC.; and KALSHIEX LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05821 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of all individuals who accessed and used the Digital Platforms and whose communications, personally identifiable information and online activity were intercepted, disclosed, or transmitted to third parties without their consent. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite the sensitive nature of the information collected through its Digital Platforms, Kalshi installed and permitted third-party scripts, pixels, and tracking technologies to operate on the platforms. These technologies are lines of code or embedded tools supplied by outside vendors that allow those vendors to collect, receive, transmit, and analyze information about users and their interactions with a platform. Through these tracking technologies, third parties such as Google, TikTok, LinkedIn, and others were able to monitor users as they interacted with Kalshi's Digital Platforms. This monitoring included, upon information and belief, users' browsing activity, pages viewed, event contracts reviewed, account interactions, and trades or attempted trades. By embedding these trackers on its Digital Platforms, Kalshi aided third-party advertisers to collect, intercept, and transmit sensitive and confidential information submitted by Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, including activity that revealed what those event contracts users researched and trades they placed, says the suit. Kalshi Inc. provides a regulated exchange for event contracts. The Company lists event-based contracts, supports trading and market data, and provides a platform for users to manage event risk. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Jennifer J. Sosa, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC 228 Park Avenue South, Suite 97956, New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com jenn.sosa@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad St., Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES: Miller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, now known as Kasowitz LLP, et al. The case is styled as Noah Miller, Maya Gal, Lemony David, Eki Mizrahi-aks, Miles Rubin, Katiana Areyeh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, now known as Kasowitz LLP, Marc Kasowitz, Jillian R Roffer Case No. 158401/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., July 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Torts - Other Professional Malpractice (Legal Malpractice)." Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, now known as Kasowitz LLP -- https://www.kasowitz.com/ -- is one of the leading litigation law firms in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Chana Lask, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK 244 Fifth Avenue, #2369 New York, NY KEYBANK NATIONAL: Simmons Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jazmine Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Banking Association; KEYCORP, an Ohio corporation; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-12629-1 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02354-LK. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and exemplary damages arising from Defendants' allegedly noncompliant provision of rest breaks, meal periods, overtime, unlawful withholding and deductions, and paid sick leave. Additionally, the Complaint seeks a statutory award of attorneys' fees under RCW 49.48.030, 49.52.070, and 49.46.090, double damages under 49.52.070, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive, and declaratory relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Emma A. Healey, Esq. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-693-7057 Fax: 206-693-7058 Email: ashley.paynter@ogletree.com emma.healey@ogletree.com KHRG LA PEER: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT, Tapia Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL TAPIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, v. KHRG LA PEER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21841 (Cal. Super., July 10, 2026) is a class action complaint against Defendants' for: -- Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; -- Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; -- Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; -- Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; -- Failure To Pay Due Wages At Termination; -- Failure to Pay Wages During Employment; -- Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; and -- Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a non-exempt hourly employee performing duties as a hotel maintenance employee starting around April 30, 2022 to February 6, 2026. KHRG is the owning and operating corporate entity for the luxury boutique property, the Kimpton La Peer Hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A Professional Law Corporation 801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 229-0114 E-mail: orobinson@rdwlaw.com mrobinson@rdwlaw.com LUME DEODORANT: Faces Class Suit Over Fragrance in Deodorants ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the Lume class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Who: Plaintiffs Shelby Cooper and Jeffrey Ligerman filed a class action lawsuit against Lume Deodorant LLC. Why: Cooper and Ligerman claim Lume falsely advertises its deodorant products as being unscented. A new class action lawsuit alleges Lume falsely advertises its deodorant products as being unscented despite the products containing a fragrance. Plaintiffs Shelby Cooper and Jeffrey Ligerman filed the class action complaint against Lume Deodorant on June 24 in New York federal court, alleging violations of consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Lume manufactures and sells deodorants labeled as "unscented," marketed under the brand names Lume for women and Mando for men. However, Cooper and Ligerman claim these Lume deodorant products contain a fragrance ingredient called "Floral Pyranol," making the "unscented" label misleading to consumers. "Given the prominent front-label 'Unscented' representation on each product, consumers believe the products are, in fact, unscented (i.e., free of fragrance)," the Lume class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs argue that Lume's marketing is false and deceptive, leading consumers to believe they are purchasing fragrance-free products. The Lume class action lawsuit alleges the company capitalized on the growing demand for unscented skincare and hygiene products, driven by heightened awareness of health and ingredient safety issues. Cooper and Ligerman argue that many consumers, including those with skin sensitivities or allergies, seek unscented products to avoid potential irritants. The plaintiffs allege that Lume's false labeling misled consumers into purchasing products that contain added fragrance, violating their trust. Plaintiffs claim Lume mislabeled products to increase profits Cooper and Ligerman argue Lume labeled the products as "unscented" despite containing fragrance to increase profits at the expense of consumer trust. The class action lawsuit alleges that consumers typically do not read the fine-print ingredient list, which includes "Floral Pyranol," and that average consumers are unlikely to recognize this ingredient as a fragrance. The plaintiffs claim that Lume's deceptive marketing practices allowed the company to gain a larger share of the deodorant market and increase its profits. Cooper and Ligerman say they would not have purchased the Lume deodorant products, or would have paid less for them, had they known the deodorants contained fragrance. The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Lume's unscented deodorant products for personal or household use during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit asserts claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as breaches of express and implied warranties and fraud. Cooper and Ligerman are demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief, restitution and damages on behalf of themselves and all class members. Currently, Procter & Gamble is facing a lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises certain Secret Invisible Solid Antiperspirant and Deodorant products as being unscented. The plaintiffs are represented by Jack Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn P.C. The Lume class action lawsuit is Cooper, et al. v. Lume Deodorant LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05309, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] MAJOR DRILLING: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Velarde" Overtime Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Luis Velarde, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Major Drilling America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00138-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in a Memorandum Decision and Order. Plaintiff worked as an hourly driller for Defendant in Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Minnesota between February 2024 and January 2025. Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to pay him for all hours worked, including pre-shift off-the-clock tasks, and violated the regular rate requirement through its per diem, rounding, and bonus pay practices. Plaintiff brought a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and sought to certify it as a collective action on behalf of similarly situated hourly employees. Plaintiff also brought three claims under the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and sought to certify those claims as a class action on behalf of Minnesota hourly employees. Neither action had been certified at the time of the ruling; both remained putative at the motion to dismiss stage. The court applied the plausibility standard set out in Twombly and Iqbal, under which factual allegations were accepted as true while conclusory statements were disregarded. On the off-the-clock theory, Defendant argued Plaintiff's allegations lacked specificity. The court declined to follow the heightened pleading standard applied by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and instead followed district courts within the Tenth Circuit. The court found Plaintiff's allegations that he regularly worked 84 to 112 hours a week and spent about 45 minutes daily on required pre-shift tasks, including donning safety gear, obtaining fuel, and attending shift-change meetings, sufficient to plead an overtime violation. The court also found these pre-shift duties integral and indispensable to Plaintiff's principal duties as a driller, distinguishing the case from Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. The off-the-clock claim survived dismissal. The court dismissed Plaintiff's remaining FLSA theories without prejudice. The rounding policy claim lacked facts showing the policy was not facially or as-applied neutral. The bonus pay claim lacked facts showing Plaintiff met the eligibility criteria, received the bonus, or worked overtime during the relevant period. The per diem claim lacked facts about the amount of the per diem or how it related to hours worked, a deficiency the court measured against Sharp v. CGG Land. The court also dismissed Plaintiff's Minnesota state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiff alleged he worked in Minnesota from about February to June 2024 but did not allege he worked more than 48 hours in a workweek during that period, the threshold for overtime under Minnesota law. Because Minnesota statutes were presumed not to apply extraterritorially, the court held Plaintiff needed specific factual allegations of overtime work performed while in Minnesota, allegations the complaint lacked. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's off-the-clock FLSA claim survived, while Plaintiff's rounding, bonus pay, and per diem FLSA claims, along with Plaintiff's Minnesota state law claims, were dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FPcnIf from PacerMonitor.com MARC JACOBS INTERNATIONAL: Ambriz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marc Jacobs International, L.L.C., et al. The case is styled as Mariela Ambriz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Marc Jacobs International, L.L.C., Marc Jacobs, Case No. 2026CUOE069475 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Marc Jacobs International -- https://www.marcjacobs.com/ -- offers a selection of luxury fashion accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Svetlana Hovhannisyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: L.Hovhannisyan@D.Law MBLS PIZZA: Childs Seeks to Recover Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON CHILDS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MBLS PIZZA MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-12442 (E.D. Mich., July 16, 2026) is a class action suit seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendant at their pizza delivery stores in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items but uses a flawed method in determining the reimbursement rates on the approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, and that their wages fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver within the three-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint. MBLS Pizza is an operator of pizza franchise stores in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com - and - J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com MEGARME LLC: Fails to Pay Supervisors Proper OT Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW CROCKETT, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEGARME LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-05419 (S.D. Tex., July 9, 2026) is a class and collective action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against Megarme US to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Crockett and the other day rate workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week but Megarme does not pay Plaintiff and other workers premium overtime wages. Instead, Megarme pays the Plaintiff a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workweek. Plaintiff Crockett has worked for Megarme as a project supervisor since approximately October 2023. Megarme Group is an industrial rope access service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1201 Fannin Street, Suite 202 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 446-9403 Facsimile: (832) 356-2684 E-mail: tjones@hkm.com METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION: Fraijo Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fernando Fraijo, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation; METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP (WEST COAST), INC.; and METRO ONE LOSS PREVENTION SERVICES GROUP (GUARDS), INC., Case No. 26-2-08738-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02353. The Complaint asserts a variety of putative class claims, including but not limited to failure to pay wages for time worked; rest break violations; and meal period violations. Additionally, the Complaint sought double damages and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Devin Smith, Esq. Scott Prange, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: devinsmith@seyfarth.com sprange@seyfarth.com - and - Jessica S. Kang, Esq. Joby C. Celoza, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 623-7580 Email: jess.kang@klgates.com joby.celoza@klgates.com - and - Brent D. Hockaday, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2828 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 939-5677 Email: Brent.Hockaday@klgates.com METROPOLITAN MARINE: Johnson Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, Inc. The case is styled as William Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-08283 (D.N.J., July 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Product Liability. Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, Inc. -- https://www.mmmca.org/ -- is an organization that represents contractors in the marine maintenance industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Harold Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (908) 319-4882 Email: mjensen@zlk.com MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Morris Communications Company data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Morris Communications Company data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Morris Communications Company Security Incident: What Happened? Questo, parent company of Georgia-based media conglomerate Morris Communications Company, has disclosed a data breach involving sensitive information. A notice posted on the Morris website states that Questo detected unusual activity in its network environment on October 9, 2025. Following an investigation with cybersecurity professionals, Questo determined on June 22, 2026 that certain files containing personal information were accessed by an unauthorized actor between October 1, 2025 and October 9, 2025. Per the notice, information potentially affected by the Questo data breach included names, dates of birth, driver's license and government identification card numbers, passport numbers, tax information, Social Security numbers, financial account information, payment card information and medical information. On July 17, 2026, Questo began sending out notices to affected individuals. What You Can Do After the Morris Communications Company Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Morris Communications Company data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Morris Communications Company to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Makkawi Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mone Makkawi, Arib Hasan, Bryan Vivas, Malik Salti, Carla Tejada, Miguel Figueroa, Ethan Wright, Ahmed Elsayed, Benjamin Wilson, Loay Elasmar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. City of New York, Timothy J. Beaudette, NYPD Member; Joel A. Mottola, NYPD Member; Howard Thornton, in his individual and official capacity; John and Jane Does 1-6, in their individual and official capacities; Sergeant Talha Ahmad; Police Officer Omar Delarosa; Jesse Lance; NYPD Detective Brian Greig; Sergeant Andonios Constantatos; Joseph Cunningham; James McCarthy; Steven Li; NYPD Officer Joahan Gomez; Ricardo Lawrence; NYPD Officer Hiram Velez; NYPD Member Aheisha Grant; NYPD John or Jane Member Does 1-25, Case No. :25-cv-06321 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-04018-KAM-JAM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/main -- is the most populous metropolis in the United States, located at the mouth of the Hudson River in southeastern New York state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq. Regina Yu, Esq. Remy Green, Esq. Leena Widdi, Esq. COHEN GREEN PLLC 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 Phone: (929) 888-9650 Email: elenacohenesq@gmail.com regina@femmelaw.com remy@femmelaw.com leenawiddi.esq@gmail.com - and - Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq. 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (646) 263-3495 Fax: (646) 349-2914 Email: gideon@gideonlaw.com - and - Jessica Massimi, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. MASSIMI LAW PLLC 99 Wall Street, Suite 1264 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (646) 241-9800 Email: jessica.massimi@gmail.com ldroubi@blhny.com - and - Sujata Sidhu Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 416 N Tioga Street, Suite 4 Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: (607) 327-3284 Fax: (607) 238-4689 Email: sujata@gibsonfirm.law - and - Tahanie Ahmad Aboushi, Esq. THE ABOUSHI LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Ste 5036 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 391-8500 Fax: (212) 391-8508 Email: tahanie@aboushi.com - and - Yan Fu, Esq. THE FU FIRM PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 205 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 584-0581 Email: yfu@thefufirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Joanne Maureen McLaren, Esq. Sandra Ann Bober, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 356-2671 Fax: (212) 356-3509 Email: jmclaren@law.nyc.gov sandrabober@outlook.com NFL ENTERPRISES LLC: Kimmons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NFL Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Thelma Kimmons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NFL Enterprises LLC, Case No. 26CV197596 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/ breach of contract)." NFL Enterprises LLC -- https://www.nfl.com/ -- is the corporate subsidiary of the National Football League responsible for managing the league's brand, digital media operations, licensing agreements, and major event promotion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Treglio, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com NORTHROP GRUMAN: Bethpage Class Suit Mediation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Northrop Grumman Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that mediation is ongoing for the Bethpage class suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company disclosed that it continues to face multiple individual lawsuits and a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York over alleged personal injury and property damage associated with historic environmental conditions in Bethpage. The court has kept the individual lawsuits on hold and rejected a motion by a group of plaintiffs seeking to partially lift the stay during an April 24 hearing. Meanwhile, both sides have submitted additional briefings on class certification and expert-related motions, and mediation remains ongoing. The company added that it is also involved in, or could face, further litigation involving insurance carriers, individual plaintiffs, proposed class actions, and other parties. Given the ongoing proceedings, the company said it is unable to predict the outcome of the Bethpage litigation or estimate any potential financial exposure. Northrop Grumman Corp. is a global aerospace and defense technology company that provides products and services in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, space, strike, and logistics and modernization. It primarily serves U.S. and allied government and defense customers worldwide. NOVELLIS CORP: Beecham Sues Over Failure to Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JULIUS BEECHAM, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVELLIS CORP, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03834-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2026) seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and other hourly employees have earned shift premium pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, the Defendant's hourly employees are entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of one and a half times their "regular rate" of pay, asserts the complaint. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, the Defendant has failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift premium pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its Guthrie, Kentucky facility as a non-exempt, hourly employee with the job title of finishing operator since March 2026. Novelis Corp. manufactures aluminum products, as well as operates rolling and recycling facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 119 East Court Square, Suite 205 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com NULO INC: Faces Vickers Suit Over Dog Food Product's Deceptive Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ LACHAE VICKERS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NULO INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04105 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2026) is a proposed class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a nationwide and New York class of consumers seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its Nulo Dog Food in violation of the New York General Business Law. The Defendant's Nulo Dog Food products bear the BC30 logo, and claims to contain a proprietary blend of bacillus coagulans probiotic that "promotes exceptional digestive and immune health." The BC30 brand is recognized by consumers and has become a valued addition to any product wishing to advance digestive and immune health claims. Throughout the Class period, the Defendant uniformly used the BC30 logo. But the Plaintiff asserts that the representation is false and misleading as the products contain far less BC30 than BC30's manufacturer requires to substantiate digestive and immune health benefit claims and also contains less than the minimum required by the manufacturer to display the BC30 logo. The Defendant's separate representation, on its earlier labeling, that the products contain "no less than 1 billion CFU" of BC30 is also false, as analytical testing demonstrates that the products contain less than half that amount. As a result of this false and misleading labeling, the Defendant was able to sell these products to thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout New York, alleges the suit. Nulo Inc. manufactures pet food for dogs and cats in the pet food industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com OFFICE DEPOT LLC: Tolentino Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Ann Tolentino on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Office Depot LLC, Case No. 26-00002-17077-1-SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02350-RAJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Office Depot LLC -- https://www.officedepot.com/ -- offers office supplies, furniture, and technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP (SAN FRANCISCO) 71 Stevenson St., Ste. 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (424) 204-4400 Email: brooksm@ballardspahr.com ORACLE CORPORATION: Lorenc Class Suit Removed to D. Colo. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as TOBY LORENC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2026CV32244, was removed from the District Court of Denver County, Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on July 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-3204 to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts that Oracle violated a section of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act that prohibits "[l]ist[ing] a cellular telephone number in a directory for a commercial purpose unless the person whose number has been listed has given affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means." The Plaintiff alleges that Oracle improperly listed his cell phone number in a purported directory for a commercial purpose. Defendant Oracle Corporation is a multinational technology and enterprise software firm based in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert C. Collins III, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: robert.collins@lw.com - and - Samir Deger-Sen, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: samir.deger-sen@lw.com - and - Ruth Hirsch, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: ruth.hirsch@lw.com - and - Kathryn A. Reilly, Esq. Michael R. Krantz, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 244-1983 E-mail: reilly@wtotrial.com E-mail: krantz@wtotrial.com OREPAC HOLDING: Underhill Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ZACHARY UNDERHILL, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OREPAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; OREPAC BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-09025-0, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05787 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff in this action alleges that OrePac committed numerous violations of Washington's wage and hour laws across a putative class of over 500 current and former employees, including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide rest and meal periods, willful withholding of wages, failure to provide paid sick leave, failure to pay wages at established pay periods, failure to pay wages owed at termination, failure to furnish complete wage statements, and failure to maintain accurate records. OrePac Holding Company is a wholesale distributor and value-added manufacturer of specialty building materials, moulding, millwork, and doors.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Guite, Esq. Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq. Denise E. Giraudo, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: rguite@sheppard.com byousefzadeh@sheppard.com dgiraudo@sheppard.com PALAMERICAN SECURITY: Cole Seeks Security Staff's Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALAMERICAN SECURITY, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01401-SB (D. Ore., July 9, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the wage and hour laws pursuant to the Oregon Revised Statutes. This action stems from Defendant's policies and practices of: (1) failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members; (2) failing to pay straight time wages to Plaintiff and Class Members; and (3) failing to pay final wages when due. The Defendant knowingly and improperly commits these violations of Oregon law by (1) paying Plaintiff and Class Members for their scheduled times, as opposed to their actual time worked; (2) requiring Plaintiff and Class Members arrive early for their shift and engage in an uncompensated "hand off" procedure; and (3) requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to work off the clock during meal periods without compensation, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security officer from April 2024 to May 2025. PalAmerican Security Inc. operates a full-service security company, operating across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Katherine D. Krebs, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com kkrebs@schneiderwallace.com PATTERN BEAUTY: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mariah Meade, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PATTERN BEAUTY, LLC, Case No. 26-2-09185-0 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05731. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 1625 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-703-4810 Email: tylerw@angelicalfo.com - and - William P. Cole, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 515 South Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-933-2330 Email: wcole@awglaw.com PAWLEYS ISLAND: Faces Suit for Hiring Sex Offender as Volunteer --------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb McCusker, writing for WBTW, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against a Pawleys Island church that has been the subject of recent scrutiny after a registered sex offender who volunteered there was arrested for allegedly violating his probation. The lawsuit names Pawleys Island Community Church and its school, Pawleys Island Christian Academy. It was filed Friday, July 17, in Georgetown County Common Pleas Court. The six-page complaint was filed by a John and Jane Doe on behalf of their minor children and on behalf of "all others similarly situated." It stems from the arrest of Warren Perry, a registered sex offender who volunteered at the school. Perry was previously convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor in 2023 for a crime committed in 2020. Working in proximity to children is a violation of Perry's probation sentence. The complaint alleges the church was "negligent, reckless, willful and wanton in the hiring of a known sex offender to supervise and oversee activities which involved the children of the parents and guardians in the class action." It claims the church intentionally failed to inform the parents that Perry was a registered sex offender and would work closely with their children. The second claim the lawsuit makes is a breach of fiduciary duties, saying the church and school owe a fiduciary obligation to the parents and children. It further claims the church and school "completely disregarded their fiduciary duty and allowed a known sex offender access to their children despite hundreds of years of church history which would dictate to the contrary." The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages in an amount exceeding $25 million. [GN] PEGASYSTEMS INC: Securities Suit Trial Set; Derivative Suit Settled ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pegasystems Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has scheduled a trial date for the securities class suit in February 2027 while the parties in the consolidated derivative suits agreed in principle to a proposed settlement. On Dec. 4, 2024, shareholders representing approximately 3% of the settlement class that had opted out of the court-approved settlement in the class action captioned City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell filed two lawsuits against the Company, its chief executive officer, and its chief operating and financial officer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The first new action is captioned Eminence Fund Long Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund Master, Ltd., Eminence Fund II Master, LP, Eminence Partners Long II, LP, Eminence Fund Leveraged Master, Ltd., Eminence Partners, L.P., and Eminence Partners II, L.P. v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell. The second is captioned PS Lit Recovery, LLC v. Pegasystems Inc., Alan Trefler, and Kenneth Stillwell. The complaints, which are substantially similar, generally allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements and allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which purportedly caused the Company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. They also assert claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation and seek unspecified damages. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints on March 13, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, it granted the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' scheme liability claims, granted the motion to dismiss as to certain claims against Ken Stillwell, and took the motion to dismiss under advisement as to all other claims. On Jan. 8, 2026, the Court issued a written order granting the motion to dismiss as to the Section 10(b) and common law fraud claims against Ken Stillwell and denying the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims. It also entered a scheduling order setting a trial for February 2027. Separately, shareholder derivative actions related to similar underlying conduct and prior litigation involving the Company. These actions name members of the Company's board of directors, certain employees, and the Company as nominal defendant, and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of the federal securities laws. They also address the relationship of these derivative proceedings to earlier litigation brought by Appian in Virginia state court and to the previously described securities class action. On Feb. 7, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative action pending in federal court (the Consolidated Action) filed a new complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Mary Larkin and Dag Sagfors, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Pegasystems Inc. v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Leon Trefler, Larry Weber, Kenneth Stillwell, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, and Pegasystems Inc., nominal defendant. The complaint asserts against the defendants claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Exchange Act relating to the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Va., alleged misconduct by Company employees asserted in that litigation, and the securities class action described. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2025. On June 6, 2025, the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative matter currently pending in Massachusetts Superior Court moved to intervene in this federal action and to stay it pending resolution of the state derivative matter. The Court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss and the state court plaintiffs' motion to intervene on July 21, 2025. Following argument, it took the motions under advisement. Additionally, on June 28, 2024, a separate shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Mass., captioned John Dwyer and Ray Gerber, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Leon Trefler, Don Schuerman, Kerim Akgonul, and Benjamin Baril, and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (the Dwyer Action). The complaint in the Dwyer Action generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees asserted in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Va. It further alleges damages from the approximately $2 billion verdict in that Appian litigation, the settlement of the securities class action, and litigation costs from various proceedings. In addition, a shareholder derivative litigation related to the same underlying conduct was filed on Nov. 22, 2024, against members of the Companys board of directors, certain employees of the Company, and the Company in the Business Litigation Section of the Superior Court in Suffolk County, Mass., captioned Jayne Birch and Robert Garfield, Plaintiffs, v. Alan Trefler, Peter Gyenes, Richard Jones, Christopher Lafond, Dianne Ledingham, Sharon Rowlands, Larry Weber, Kerim Akgonul, Don Schuerman, Leon Trefler, Douglas Kim, John Petronio, Benjamin Baril, and Kenneth Stillwell, Defendants, and Pegasystems Inc., Nominal Defendant (the Birch Action). The complaint generally asserts the same claims asserted in the Dwyer Action. On Feb. 12, 2025, after submission by the parties of a stipulation and proposed order, an order was entered consolidating the Dwyer and Birch Actions and approving the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint and a motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in the state court action. The consolidated complaint generally alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with alleged misconduct by Company employees alleged in the litigation brought by Appian in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Va., described above, and in connection with the investigation conducted and the report issued by the Demand Review Committee of the Companys board regarding the same. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and after briefing by the parties, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion on Sept. 4, 2025. On Oct. 2, 2025, the Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. On Jan. 13, 2026, the Court entered final judgment in defendants favor. On Jan. 7, 2026, the parties to the federal and state court cases agreed in principle to a proposed settlement of the litigation. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs in the federal and state court cases agreed to the dismissal of all claims upon the Company adopting certain governance reforms and payment of an estimated aggregate sum of $9.75 million, inclusive of a $7 million special dividend to shareholders (excluding defendants) and the derivative plaintiffs attorney fees. On Jan. 23, 2026, the parties jointly moved the Court for relief from the final judgment in the state court action for the sole purpose of permitting the parties to seek Court approval of the proposed settlement, and on Feb. 10, 2026, the plaintiffs submitted the proposed settlement to the Court for preliminary approval. On March 18, 2026, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing and granted the parties relief from the final judgment. On April 16, 2026, it preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and held a final settlement approval hearing on June 25, 2026. On June 30, 2026, the Court entered an order for final approval. Pegasystems Inc. is a Massachusetts-based software company that develops customer engagement and digital process automation platforms for enterprises worldwide. It serves clients across industries including financial services, healthcare, communications, and government. PEOPLES CARTAGE INC: Anthony Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peoples Cartage, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Leonard Anthony, Doris Jean Anthony, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated v. Peoples Cartage, Inc., Total Distribution, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00447 (S.D.W. Va., July 7, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Product Liability. People's Cartage, Inc. operates as a logistic company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq. David H. Carriger, Esq. L. Dante DiTrapano, Esq. CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO Law and Arts Center West 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Phone: (304) 343-4323 Fax: (304) 344-3684 Email: amclaughlin@cldlaw.com dcarriger@cldlaw.com ditrapano@cldlaw.com - and - Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 346-2889 Fax: (304) 346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Bernard E. Layne, III, Esq. Damon L. Ellis, Esq. Jonathan R. Mani, Esq. MANI ELLIS & LAYNE P. O. Box 1266 Charleston, WV 25326-1266 Phone: (304) 720-1000 Fax: (304) 720-1001 Email: blayne@mel-law.com dlellis@mel-law.com jrmani@mel-law.com - and - Michael David Heidenreich, Esq. W. Jesse Forbes, Esq. FORBES LAW OFFICES 1118 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 343-4050 Fax: (304) 343-7450 Email: mdh@forbeslawwv.com wjforbes@forbeslawwv.com PINNACLE BANK: Cox Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alta Fay Cox, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PINNACLE BANK, a Tennessee Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CVCS26-0001437 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sutter County, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01148. The Complaint alleges that Pinnacle Bank unlawfully intercepted and disclosed website visitors' communications and personal information through various website tracking technologies and asserts causes of action under both California law and the federal Wiretap Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Barnhill, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 650 S Main St, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 833-0500 Email: mcbarnhill@michaelbest.com PLANET FITNESS: Faces Matsunaga Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORIE MATSUNAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLANET FITNESS, INC., COLLEEN KEATING, and JAY STASZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-00576 (D.N.H., July 14, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Planet Fitness common stock between November 6, 2025, and May 6, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Planet Fitness' national rollout of an increase to its Black Card membership tier pricing and confidently touted the ability to continue the prior year's marketing campaign. Defendants relied upon expected membership volume growth and rate increases to confidently present a three-year growth algorithm. The Defendant' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's brand health, its "We Are All Strong on This Planet" marketing messaging, and its purportedly resilient high-value, low-price subscription business model. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Planet Fitness' customer acquisition and marketing metrics. Notably, the Company's updated marketing messaging was failing to resonate with, and was actively intimidating, its core target demographic of fitness beginners and casual gym-goers. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Planet Fitness' securities at artificially inflated prices. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Planet Fitness' revelation. The price of Planet Fitness' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $63.96 per share on May 6, 2026, Planet Fitness' stock price fell to $44.01 per share on May 7, 2026, a decline of about 31.19% in the span of just a single day. As a result, Planet Fitness was experiencing a significant headwind in net member joins during its peak first-quarter sign-up period that rendered its previously issued fiscal 2026 guidance and long term financial targets unachievable. The Plaintiff purchased Planet Fitness common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. The Planet Fitness is a global company with a majority U.S. presence. They are one of the largest franchisors and operators of fitness centers in the world by member count and location footprint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Darling, Esq. BOYNTON, WALDRON, DOLEAC, WOODMAN & SCOTT, P.A. 82 Court Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 436-4010 Facsimile: (603) 431-9973 -and- - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PLANT PEOPLE PBC: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plant People, PBC. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Plant People, PBC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01359 (W.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plant People, PBC -- https://www.plantpeople.co/ -- offers doctor-formulated plant-based gummies & chews with functional ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Funk Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KIMBERLY A. FUNK individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2026CH000118, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08457 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from Progressive's denial of insurance claims based on risk undertaken in the original application in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff is seeking equitable relief and damages for breach of contract, bad faith, violations of the ILCS and unjust enrichment. Progressive Universal Insurance is an insurance company incorporated and domiciled in Wisconsin.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gillian G. Lindsay, Esq. Ian H. Fisher, Esq. Nicole Mattingly, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 527-4000 Facsimile: (312) 966-8584 E-mail: GLindsay@taftlaw.com IFisher@taftlaw.com NMattingly@taftlaw.com REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Cheatham Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN CHEATHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GEORGE D. YANCOPOULOS, ISRAEL LOWY, and RYAN CROWE, Case No. 7:26-cv-06026 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2026) is a class action suit on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Regeneron common stock between August 1, 2025, and May 15, 2026, seeking to recover damages in violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff seeks remedies and equitable relief arising from misleading information on the material adverse facts and actual risk of clinical failure of Regeneron's Phase III clinical trial of its Fianlimab, a LAG-3 inhibitor, in combination with cemiplimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, as a first-line treatment for metastatic or locally advanced melanoma during the class period. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Regeneron provided positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Phase III Fianlimab-Libtayo Study. At the same time, the Defendant failed to disclose that the active treatment arm was failing to achieve meaningful clinical differentiation over standard therapies, and that the trial would ultimately fail to reach statistical significance on its primary endpoint even without overperformance of the control arm. The price of Regeneron common stock fell dramatically from $731.77 per share on April 28, 2026 to $686.36 per share on April 29, 2026 and from $698.25 per share on May 15, 2026 to $629.68 per share on May 18, 2026, says the suit. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is a New York-based company that discovers, invents, develops, manufactures, tests, and commercializes medicines to treat various disorders worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Drug Trial Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pluang reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals for allegedly making false statements about the Phase III Fianlimab-Libtayo trial. The lawsuit claims Regeneron misled investors by overstating the trial's success, causing the stock price to be artificially inflated. After the company announced the trial failed to meet its primary endpoint on May 15, 2026, the stock price dropped nearly 10%. Investors who bought shares during the period are encouraged to contact the law firm before the September 14, 2026 deadline to join the lawsuit. [GN] RELISH LABS: Ferrara Sues Over Deceptive Meal Delivery Service Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ AH LAN WAKINEKONA FERRARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELISH LABS, LLC, d/b/a HOME CHEF, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV21230 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false and misleading advertising, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading advertising of its meal delivery service subscriptions. According to the complaint, the Defendant deceives consumers into enrolling in a weekly recurring subscription by claiming that consumers can receive its meal delivery services for a low weekly rate. However, the low weekly rate applies to the first month only, and after that consumers are automatically enrolled in a recurring weekly subscription at a price that is double or more of the advertised rate. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Relish Labs, LLC, doing business as Home Chef, is a meal delivery service provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com RENT GROUP: Esparza Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENT GROUP INC., a Georgia corporation d/b/a WWW.RENT.COM, Case No. 26STCV18119, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07824 to the proceeding. The arises from alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act after the Defendant installed a software created by a third party Nexxen on Rent.com that collects certain information from visitors to Rent.com. The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief and statutory damages after their personal information was shared with Nexxen or other third parties by Defendant without effective and informed prior consent. Nexxen is a Delaware-based corporation with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Rent Group Inc. is an American digital media and rental property marketing company that owns major platforms like Rent.com, ApartmentGuide.com, and Rentals.com.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. Gillian H. Clow, Esq. Omar Morquecho, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com gillian.clow@alston.com omar.morquecho@alston.com - and - Tracy Yao, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 55 2nd Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 243-1000 Facsimile: (415) 243-1001 Email: tracy.yao@alston.com REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Men's Deodorant ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Revlon Consumer Products has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges Mitchum Men's Unscented gel and roll-on deodorants are misleadingly labeled, given that the products contain fragrance. The 18-page false advertising lawsuit claims that Revlon's misleading representations about Mitchum Men's "Unscented" deodorant are meant to capitalize on growing consumer interest in products that will not worsen skin sensitivities, allergies, respiratory disorders, or other health conditions triggered by perfumes. The filing relays that fragrance is a common skin irritant that should be avoided by those with sensitive skin. After viewing the "unscented" claim on the products' labels, reasonable consumers would believe that the deodorants are free from potentially irritating fragrances, the suit contends. However, closer examination of the back label and fine-print ingredients list for the gel and roll-on deodorants reveals that they contain added "parfum," or fragrance, buried within a laundry list of "unrecognizable" ingredients like aluminum sesquichlorohydrate, the case states. The filing adds that the roll-on version of Mitchum Men's Unscented deodorant does not even list inactive ingredients like parfum on the back label. Instead, consumers must peel back the label to find additional product information, which most people are unlikely to do prior to purchase, the case says. Revlon's apparent deception is compounded by the fact that, until approximately 2021, both formulations of "Unscented" Mitchum deodorant were unscented, meaning they were already free of fragrance. The case quotes a consumer complaint from April 3, 2021 that noted the discrepancy and asked, "[w]hat the heck? You can't add fragrance to a product and still label it 'UNSCENTED'!" Furthermore, the complaint claims that the purportedly unscented products cost more than similar items not misleadingly advertised as fragrance-free. Essentially, the suit says, the plaintiffs and proposed class members did not receive the primary benefit of their bargain. The Mitchum deodorant class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in California who, at any time from four years preceding the date of the filing of this complaint to the time a class is notified, purchased, for personal or household use, and not for resale or distribution, any of the Mitchum deodorant products at issue. [GN] REYES COCA-COLA: Duran FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cai Duran, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, L.L.C., Case No. 26STCV16441 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07291 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling (RCCB) -- https://reyescocacola.com/ -- is a bottler and distributor of Coca-Cola and Monster brands.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Jasmine Jane Stanzick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Fax: (310) 201-5219 Email: jstanzick@seyfarth.com RIGHT AT SCHOOL: Danley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Danley, Michelle West, Keyanna Belay, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. RIGHT AT SCHOOL, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-17896-8 KNT was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02353. The Complaint asserts claims for failure to compensate for alleged noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay overtime wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathryn S. Rosen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Ste. 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Phone: (206) 946-4910 Email: krosen@seyfarth.com ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Leighton False Ad Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as MARISSA LEIGHTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROOT TECHNOLOGY LTD. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV17890, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07722 to the proceeding. In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleges Momcozy falsely advertised characteristics of its breast pump products' performance, and asserts claims for violation of the California False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. Root Technology Ltd. is a Denver, Colorado-based entity that does business as the popular maternal and baby care brand Momcozy.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Heather Canner, Esq. Katelyn A. Feliciano, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: HeatherCanner@dwt.com KatelynFeliciano@dwt.com - and - Lauren Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile:·(206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Catchings Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Catchings, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC.; RES CARE, INC.; SEVITA HEALTH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV14727 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07322. The Complaint, which is the pleading that sets forth the claims for relief upon which this action may be removed, alleges the following purported causes of action: failure to pay all wages and minimum wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Codes and an alleged contract that Plaintiff seeks to enforce as a “third-party beneficiary”; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to pay all wages upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate records; all in in violation of Cal. Lab. Codes and violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex M. Barfield, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Phone: 216.430.3400 Facsimile: 216.430.3409 Email: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com - and - Andrew M. McNaught, Esq. Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: amcnaught@seyfarth.com pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com SAM'S EAST: Rose Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAM'S EAST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, Case No. 1:26-cv-01926-JFS (M.D. Pa., July 10, 2026) is a wage-and-hour action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other earned wages owed to hourly-paid fuel center employees who worked for the Defendant at Sam's Club fuel center locations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendant employs hourly-paid fuel center employees to monitor fuel centers, assist customers, respond to fuel-center issues, perform maintenance-related work, remove trash, communicate with managers and other employees, train employees, and complete related work during their shifts. Hourly-paid fuel center employees are required to remain responsible for fuel-center operations during their shifts, including when they are not provided duty-free meal periods and/or breaks. The Defendant maintains timekeeping, scheduling, payroll, staffing, meal period, and overtime practices that fail to pay hourly-paid fuel center employees for all compensable work time. Hourly-paid fuel center employees are not paid for all compensable time spent working during unpaid meal periods and/or breaks, including time when they remain responsible for fuel-center duties and are not completely relieved from duty, says the suit. The Defendant also maintains a practice of adjusting shifts, requiring delayed punch-ins, or otherwise controlling recorded work time in a manner that avoids or reduces overtime compensation owed to hourly-paid fuel center employees. The Defendant operates Sam's Club retail and fuel-center locations in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Brown, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com SIG SAUER: 8th Cir. Dismisses Class Suit Over Defective P320 Pistol ------------------------------------------------------------------- Morningstar reports that SIG SAUER, an industry-leading manufacturer of cutting-edge firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, and advanced concepts, issued a statement on July 18, after the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on July 16, 2026, ordered the dismissal of a SIG SAUER P320 class action lawsuit in its entirety. The Eighth Circuit Court ruled in Glasscock v. SIG SAUER, Inc. that a plaintiff must experience an actual defect on a product claim, rather than suggesting a theoretical defect could occur in the future and claiming damages. In its written decision, the court shows the plaintiff "admitted that he has had no issues (including inadvertent discharge) with his P320." The unanimous ruling by a panel of three federal judges determined that a hypothetical defect is insufficient for the lawsuit, clearly stating that mere ownership of a product is not satisfactory in the case. The outcome in Glasscock v. SIG SAUER, Inc. is significant because of the strong and unambiguous language by the Eighth Circuit Court highlighting the "wholly speculative" nature of the plaintiff's claim. "The Eighth Circuit's ruling adds to our approximately 20 case dismissals involving the P320, including a previous class action lawsuit," said Keith Gibson, an attorney at Littleton Joyce and counsel for SIG SAUER. "The P320 is among the most tested and proven handguns in the world, which is why we will continue to defend SIG SAUER's products and the technology behind them." Similarly, a separate federal court denied class action certification in Ortiz v. SIG SAUER, Inc. in 2022. Multiple courts dismissed P320 cases after SIG SAUER demonstrated through repeated company and independent testing the firearm cannot discharge without a trigger pull. In addition, several plaintiffs decided to withdraw their P320 lawsuits after the evidence and independent investigations were presented. In May 2026, two separate lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice in Massachusetts federal court and Colorado federal court. Nobody, including multiple experts retained by plaintiffs, has ever replicated a P320 pistol firing without a trigger pull. In Massachusetts, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the case which claimed his issued P320 discharged in his hand without a trigger pull. His employer, the Cambridge Police Department, determined the plaintiff's handling of the weapon violated numerous departmental rules and caused the gun to discharge in an enclosed van with other officers. In Colorado federal court, the plaintiff similarly withdrew the case after SIG SAUER showed again the P320 cannot discharge without a trigger pull. The P320 is an innovative striker-fired pistol which has been selected as the handgun of choice following rigorous testing by the U.S. military and a number of other countries, including Canada, Switzerland, and Australia, as well as by elite law enforcement and federal agencies. It cannot under any circumstance discharge without a trigger pull -- a fact which has repeatedly been verified through testing by SIG SAUER, handgun experts, and independent labs. About SIG SAUER Inc. SIG SAUER Inc. is a leading manufacturer of premium firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, remote-controlled weapon stations, and drones. Building off its 250-year track record, the company's products are synonymous with industry-leading engineering, quality, and innovation which has made it the brand of choice across the defense industry, law enforcement, and shooting community. SIG SAUER serves all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces and with a presence in more than 90 countries is the preferred partner to top militaries around the world. The company is certified a Great Place to Work. For more information, visit sigsauer.com Media Contact Tory Mazzola Vice President, Global Communications SIG SAUER Inc. media@sigsauer.com [GN] STUBHUB INC: Stasium Sues Over Misleading Sales of Tickets ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Stasium, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05744 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026), is brought against Defendant for violations of federal, state, and common law set forth herein in connection with Defendant's misleading sales in the secondary market for World Cup 2026 Tickets in the United States during the applicable statutory period and continuing through the present day ("Class Period"), in violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"). StubHub continues to not only sell World Cup Tickets for which it is not authorized, but also includes warranties called the Fan Protect Guarantee, for which it affirmatively promises the authenticity of these World Cup Tickets. However, this has not been the case because Plaintiff and Class members, like so many hundreds (if not more) of World Cup fans, purchased World Cup Tickets only to find out that those tickets either did not exist, were revoked without any forewarning, or had been erased due to what FIFA calls "poor digital infrastructure." StubHub misrepresents its authority to sell World Cup Tickets, then, when Plaintiff and Class members travel thousands of miles to attend World Cup matches, there are no tickets to be found despite having paid for them. At this point, what is known is that Plaintiff and Class members are losing their tickets despite having legally purchased them, despite having being told they exist, and despite the Fan Protect Guarantee. Whether the reason that this occurs is because of a mysteriously "poor infrastructure" which leads to the cancellation of the World Cup tickets does not matter. What matters is that Plaintiff and Class members were lied to and purchased World Cup Tickets for large sums of money – only to incur tremendous financial losses due to the necessity to pay travel expenses, take off time from work, and for other ancillary costs. The Plaintiff and Class members are among the hundreds (if not more) World Cup fans who did not get what they paid for on the resale market due to StubHub's violations of the federal, state, and common laws and seek injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages due to Defendant's conduct. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to their costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff paid StubHub $1,884.64 for two tickets to the 2026 World Cup match between France and Norway on June 26, 2026, which would take place in Foxborough, Massachusetts, at Gillette Stadium. StubHub publicly represents itself as a seller of ticket for sporting events, concerts, theatre, and festivals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 626 RexCorp Plaza, Suite 605 Uniondale, NY 11556 Phone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: ecf@laukaitislaw.com SWIFT PORK: Court OKs $930K Settlement Over Facility Odor --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Nicholas Vail, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Swift Pork Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), Chief Judge David J. Hale of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted final approval of a class action settlement in a Memorandum Opinion and Order. This is a certified class action. The court had conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes in a December 9, 2025 order, and it confirmed that certification in this ruling for the following class: all owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within one mile of the facility's property boundary at any time from July 11, 2020, to the present. The case involved claims of private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligent trespass under Kentucky law arising from noxious odor emissions from the JBS Pork Production Facility. The court earlier dismissed the public-nuisance and negligent-trespass claims but allowed the private-nuisance claim to proceed. The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2025. According to the final settlement, the amount totaled 930,000 dollars, including per-household payments, attorney fees and costs, a service award to Vail, and the agreed 430,000 dollar estimate for a new continuous hydrolyzer that the defendant purchased and installed at the facility to reduce odor. Notice was sent to 4,497 households, and by the final fairness hearing on May 14, 2026, class counsel reported 593 approved claims and four opt-outs. One untimely objection, from class member Ian Muldion, did not prevent approval. The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), finding no evidence of fraud or collusion and noting substantial discovery and a day-long mediation before the arm's length negotiations that produced the terms. The court also examined the settlement's 36-month cooling-off period, during which claims that accrue are not released but cannot be asserted until the period ends, and found this provision did not bar approval under the factual-predicate test applied by the Sixth Circuit. The court approved 150,000 dollars in attorney fees, thirty percent of the common fund, applying the percentage-of-the-fund method because class counsel did not seek fees on the value of the facility improvements. It also approved litigation costs up to 45,000 dollars and confirmed a 5,000 dollar service award to Vail, citing his deposition and a full day of mediation preparation. Class counsel had not fully complied with the court's earlier directive to document Vail's time on the case, but the lack of documentation did not prevent approval given the absence of objections and the modest award. The court confirmed the prior approval of the notice program, distributed by first-class mail and publication in The Courier-Journal, and found the opt-out rate of under 0.09 percent supported the settlement's adequacy. Accordingly, the court granted Vail's motions for final approval and for attorney fees and costs, confirmed Vail as class representative and Liddle Sheets Coulson, P.C. and Gray & White as class counsel, and directed the parties to effectuate the settlement terms. The matter is closed and stricken from the docket, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Plaintiff was represented by Matthew L. White of Gray and White, and by Albert J. Asciutto, Nicholas A. Coulson, and Steven D. Liddle of Liddle Sheets Coulson, P.C. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G6I5cL from PacerMonitor.com SYSCO CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Torres Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No. 4:26-cv-05469 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2026) is a class action against Sysco for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information of its current and former customers and employees, including Plaintiff. In or about May 2026 and June 2026, unauthorized third parties gained access to Sysco's network systems and obtained files containing the PII of Sysco's current and former customers and employees, including Plaintiff (the Data Breach). Sysco owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. Sysco breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its current and former customers' and employees' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of Sysco's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff’s and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Sysco. As a condition of providing employment to Plaintiff, Sysco required Plaintiff to provide it with his PII. Sysco is a wholesale restaurant food distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com T. SLACK: N.J. Super. App. Div. Limits WHL Look-Back in Martinez ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of JUAN MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. T. SLACK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. and THEODORE SLACK, Defendants-Appellants, Docket No. A-1008-24 ( N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the representative action certification, reversed the six-year look-back period for the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL) claims, affirmed the six-year limitations period for the Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) claims, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In this wage and hour dispute, the Appellate Division addressed two important issues. First, whether a representative action brought pursuant to the WHL, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a43, and the PWA, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25 to -56.47, is distinct from a class action pursuant to Rule 4:32-1. Second, it considered the appropriate statute of limitations applicable to companion wage claims. Defendants Theodore Slack and T. Slack appealed from the Dec. 6, 2024 Law Division interlocutory order, which granted Plaintiff Martinez's motion to certify this matter as a representative action under the WHL and the PWA. Martinez was also designated as the representative of the Defendants' current and former employees. On appeal, the Defendants contended the motion court erred in determining: (1) the WHL allows for a representative action independent of Rule 4:32-1; (2) Martinez justified class treatment despite the failure to provide evidence of other similarly situated employees; and (3) even if the representative class was justified, the court improperly applied a six-year look-back period. The Appellate Division granted the National Employment Lawyers Association-New Jersey leave to appear as amicus curiae. Theodore Slack is the president and principal officer of T. Slack, a small, non-union New Jersey contractor that performed primarily public works projects, along with some private jobs. From 2006 to 2019, Martinez worked for T. Slack as an hourly laborer and was paid at the prevailing "D" laborer rate. Martinez alleged that the company employed between six and ten hourly laborers during that period, all of whom were subject to the same pay practices. Martinez alleged that while performing public works projects, he carried out higher-paid "B" and "C" laborer duties but was paid at a lower rate when working on private projects. He also claimed T. Slack failed to properly calculate his blended overtime pay by using the lower private or laborer rate instead of a weighted average when he worked both public and private jobs or multiple job classifications in the same week. In addition, Martinez alleged he was not paid for off-the-clock work, including transporting equipment, loading and unloading trucks, and travel related to worksites, and that his earned sick leave was calculated using the lower private wage rate instead of a blended rate. In February 2020, Martinez filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of similarly situated hourly employees, alleging violations of the PWA, WHL, and ESLL. He claimed the Defendants failed to properly pay blended overtime wages, prevailing wages, compensation for off-the-clock work, and earned sick leave wages. Martinez sought compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and other statutory relief for himself and other similarly situated employees. During discovery, conducted under the supervision of a special adjudicator, the Defendants provided Martinez with the names and contact information of their hourly employees. In September 2024, Martinez moved to certify a statutory representative action under the WHL and PWA, seeking to represent both current and former employees. The Defendants opposed Martinez's motion, arguing that he failed to satisfy the class certification requirements under Rule 4:32-1 and could not pursue a representative action outside that rule. They also contended that the proposed class was too small, Martinez was not an adequate representative, and individualized factual and damages issues made representative or class treatment inappropriate. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the case qualified as a representative action under the WHL and PWA, certified it as such, and designated Martinez as the representative. The court also applied a six-year look-back period for overtime claims, from February 28, 2014, to February 28, 2020, and ordered the Defendants to provide contact information for the represented employees so notice could be prepared, approved, and mailed to them. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the trial court erred by allowing a representative action outside the requirements of Rule 4:32-1, certifying Martinez without sufficient evidence of similarly situated employees, and applying a six-year look-back period for overtime claims. They also relied on Maia v. IEW Construction Group to argue that the WHL's six-year statute of limitations applies only prospectively, not retroactively. The Appellate Division held that representative actions under the WHL and PWA may proceed independently of Rule 4:32-1 and affirmed the trial court's finding that the proposed group of hourly employees was similarly situated. However, relying on Maia, it ruled that the trial court erred in applying a six-year look-back period to WHL and ESLL claims because the six-year statute of limitations applies only prospectively, leaving those claims subject to a two-year limitations period. The Court affirmed the six-year look-back period for PWA claims, finding they are contractual in nature and governed by New Jersey's six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract. The Appellate Division affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://lnk.ua/TH6drIjik. Aaron L. Peskin -- apeskin@kanghaggerty.com -- argued the cause for appellants (Kang Haggerty LLC, attorneys; Ralph P. Ferrara -- rferrara@kanghaggerty.com -- and Aaron L. Peskin, on the briefs). David Tykulsker -- david@dtesq.com -- argued the cause for respondent (David Tykulsker & Associates, attorneys; David Tykulsker, on the brief). Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan@gmlaborlaw.com -- argued the cause for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association-New Jersey (Goodley McCarthy LLC, attorneys; Ryan P. McCarthy, on the brief). TARGET CORP: Martinez Seeks Refund of Allegedly Unlawful Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZUANIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-01807-MMH-SJH (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2026) seeks a judgment that requires the Defendant to return to Plaintiff all International Emergency Economic Powers Act duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest as well as seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Defendant recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs. The class action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff, purchaser of goods that Defendant sold 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, and against Defendant who shifted the economic burden of the IEEPA tariffs to 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 by Defendant to Plaintiff. The Defendant now receives an inequitable windfall by collecting refunds from the federal government for tariff costs that were shifted to and paid by Plaintiff, who purchased goods from Defendant, and therefore, is the real party in interest to receive the IEEPA tariff refunds. The Defendant 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, says the suit. The refund process set in place by the federal government when the United States Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs established that only the importer of record is entitled to apply for and receive a refund for any moneys paid for the import of goods. However, Defendant shifted the cost of these tariffs to its customers by way of price increases to products subject to tariffs and items not subjected to tariffs, being Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who bore the tariff costs in the first place. The Defendant 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 Defendant -- are the ones left paying for it, the suit added. TARGET CORPORATION is an American retail corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq. FARRELL & FULLER LAW 270 Munoz Rivera Ave. Ste. 201 San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (939) 293-8244 Facsimile: (939) 293-8245 E-mail: mike@farrellfuller.com TOTAL SYSTEM: Commerce Equipment Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Commerce Equipment Rental, on behalf of itself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated merchants v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC. d/b/a TSYS, Case No. 26CV0515 was removed from the Superior Court of Jackson County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Georgia on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00223-RWS. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Putative Class, contends that “since 2023 TSYS has unilaterally increased fees, and invented and imposed new fees that are improper and unauthorized.” Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Putative Class, seeks recovery for Breach of Contract and Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and further seeks equitable relief under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alan G. Snipes, Esq. Thomas F. Gristina, Esq. PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C. 1111 Bay Avenue, Third Floor Post Office Box 1199 Columbus, GA 31902-1199 Phone: (706) 324-0251 Facsimile: (706) 243-0417 Email: asnipes@pagescrantom.com TRUIST BANK: Edwards Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rossie Ernest Lee Edwards, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUIST BANK, Case No. 251102320 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04682. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff continues to assert a claim against Truist in its role as "an auto lender to redress alleged systemic violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC")." The Plaintiff asserts that "the UCC requires secured parties who utilize self-help repossession to provide consumers with proper notices when repossessing a financed vehicle."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: K. Issac deVyver, Esq. Karla Johnson, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Tower Two-Sixty 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 667-7988 Facsimile: (412) 667-7976 Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------------ CUInsight reports that a Pennsylvania credit union has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against TruStage Financial Group, Inc. after a cyberattack forced the Madison, Wisconsin-based company to shut down its systems. TruStage provides insurance and financial services to credit unions across the country -- and, through them, to millions of American consumers. The lawsuit, filed by Bessemer System Federal Credit Union, alleges that TruStage failed to implement and maintain adequate, industry-standard cybersecurity safeguards, culminating in the cybersecurity incident TruStage disclosed on July 15, 2026. According to the complaint, unauthorized third parties are believed to have accessed TruStage's systems, and the resulting shutdown has disrupted services that credit unions depend on daily. The complaint alleges that normal business operations with TruStage have come to a halt. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of credit unions and individuals affected by the breach. It seeks damages, recovery of payments made for allegedly deficient services, reimbursement of breach-related expenses, and declaratory and equitable relief. "Protecting members is at the heart of everything a credit union does," said Joy Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of Bessemer System Federal Credit Union. "Pursuing a legal claim is the most powerful tool a credit union has to protect its members and obtain compensation from culpable third-party vendors." "The credit union movement is about member advocacy, and this case is about advocacy for the entire movement," said Charles Nerko of NERKO PLLC, an attorney to the credit union and the proposed class. "Every credit union is entitled to vendors whose security practices match their security promises. When a vendor's performance causes harm, credit unions deserve compensation." In a July 15, 2026 public statement, TruStage acknowledged that it "recently identified a cybersecurity incident affecting its environment and immediately activated its incident response and recovery protocols," and said it "has engaged external cybersecurity experts to support containment, remediation and recovery efforts." A notice on the company's website states: "Our systems are down as we are investigating a recent cybersecurity incident." News reports indicate TruStage took its network offline after detecting suspicious activity and told customers they may have difficulty accessing account information, completing transactions, or submitting requests online. The complaint contrasts these events with TruStage's own security assurances -- including its privacy policy and 2025 security materials provided to credit union clients -- which state that the company protects information through administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Bessemer System Federal Credit Union was founded by employees of the Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad in Greenville, Pennsylvania, where it remains headquartered, and expanded to serve the broader community in 2005. The credit union and the proposed class are represented by Charles Nerko of NERKO PLLC, a law firm founded to advocate for credit unions in vendor disputes through its Third-Party Advantage(R) program; Lori G. Feldman of Hecht Partners LLP; and Kara A. Elgersma of Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP. The case is Bessemer System Federal Credit Union v. TruStage Financial Group, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. [GN] TRUWILD LLC: Automatically Renews Paid Subscription, Sanchez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA SANCHEZ v. TRUWILD, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.TRUWILD.COM, Case No. 268TCV22102 (Cal. Super., July 10, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated who are affected by the unlawful automatic renewal or continuous service of paid subscription. The Plaintiff brings this action after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.ti-uwild.com which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. The Defendant allegedly made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law by: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The Defendant offers through the website various subscriptions for products to consumers. The Defendant's offerings constitute an "automatic renewal" because such offerings comprise of plans, arrangements, or provisions of a contract that contains a free-to-pay conversion or in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term for the purposes of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17601(a)(1). TRUWILD, LLC provides whole-food-based natural supplements for outdoor athletes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over Membership's Automatic Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isabelle Docto, writing for DH National, reports that Canadians who use Uber could be part of a new proposed class-action lawsuit. On Thursday, July 16, Consumer Law Group filed a statement of claim against Uber over alleged deceptive practices related to Uber One memberships. The monthly ($9.99) or annual ($96) subscription provides customers with savings on rides and food delivery orders. The class action claims that Uber One subscriptions "deploy misleading enrollment, billing and automatic renewal schemes intended to induce consumers to unwittingly enroll in subscriptions." "Consumers are routinely misled about key terms of subscriptions, including the timing of charges, renewal conditions, cancellation policies and the true savings and benefits," stated the Consumer Law Group. These claims have not been tested in court. In an email statement to Daily Hive, Uber said that it does not enroll or charge people for Uber One without their consent. "Customers must actively choose to sign up, including for free trials or promotional offers, and memberships renew automatically unless cancelled," stated a spokesperson. "Customers can cancel anytime in the app, and for most people, the process takes less than 20 seconds." They said customers can do so by opening the app, clicking on account, then clicking on Manage Membership under the subscription. "We welcome the opportunity to discuss the benefits of Uber One before the Court," stated the spokesperson. The allegations The class action is being brought on by a plaintiff who lives in North York, Ont. Around Nov. 30, 2022, he subscribed to Uber One and in July 2025, prior to the stated renewal date, he cancelled the subscription. According to the statement of claim, despite the plaintiff's cancellation, on Aug. 29, 2025, the ride-share and food delivery app charged the credit card registered to his account and automatically renewed his subscription. The proposed class-action lawsuit therefore alleges that Uber has harmed customers by doing any of the following: -- Enrolling them in Uber One subscriptions without properly disclosing important terms, including automatic renewal -- Enrolling them in Uber One subscriptions and charging them without their knowledge or consent -- Deliberately making it difficult to cancel their memberships Consumer Law Group claims that the company's practices violated the Consumer Protection Act and other applicable laws and have caused "widespread harm to consumers" in the form of unauthorized charges and undue financial loss. Are you eligible to be a part of this proposed class action against Uber? The class action has been filed on behalf of Canadian residents (except Quebec) who were enrolled in an Uber One subscription without their informed consent and/or who faced prohibitive obstacles when trying to cancel their subscriptions. It's calling on the defendant to pay punitive damages to the plaintiff and class members. Canadians who think they could be a part of this class action don't need to do anything right now. Consumer Law Group recommends that you join the class action by signing up for updates on its site. This isn't the first time the food delivery company has been involved in a class-action lawsuit. Last year, a class action was launched against Uber Eats over hidden service fees. [GN] UNITED HEALTH: Ainsworth Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Janice Ainsworth, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00687 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03053-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 150 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 928-9901 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Tao, Esq. E. Todd Presnell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2247 Email: atao@bradley.com tpresnell@bradley.com UNITED NATURAL: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSE MARTINEZ, ASHLEY DOWMAN, and ANGEL LIVINGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS WEST, INC., a foreign profit corporation; UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; UNFI DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; UNFI WHOLESALE, INC., a foreign profit corporation; UNFI GROCERS DISTRIBUTION, INC., a foreign profit corporation; CENTRALIA HOLDINGS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-20311-3 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05791 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert a single cause of action for violation of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, on behalf of themselves and all current and former Washington employees of the Defendants who earned less than twice the applicable minimum hourly wage from June 24, 2023, through the date of Certification of the Class. United Natural Foods West, Inc. was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of a general line of groceries.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Damon C. Elder, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: damon.elder@morganlewis.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Abramczyk Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Autumn Abramczyk, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, OPTUM, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00689 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03055-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational for-profit company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, specializing in health insurance and health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 150 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 928-9901 Email: bkeaty@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Tao, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2247 Email: atao@bradley.com - and - E. Todd Presnell, Esq. MILLER & MARTIN 150 4th Ave. N. Ste. 1200 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-9270 Email: tpresnell@millermartin.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Total Care Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Total Care Dental and Orthodontics, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES ENABLED SERVICES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC. OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, OPTUM PAY, Case No. 3:26-cv-00688 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 7, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-03054-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational for-profit company based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, specializing in health insurance and health care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Chalos, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 222 2nd Ave S #1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Email: mchalos@lchb.com - and - Melissa Gardner, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: mgardner@lchb.com The Defendants are represented by: E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Andrew W. Tao, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP One 22 One 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2355 Fax: (615) 252-6355 Email: tpresnell@bradley.com atao@bradley.com UPLIFTING RESULTS: Pitre Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yolanda Pitre, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPLIFTING RESULTS LABS, INC. D/B/A SUPERGUT, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26-CIV-03984 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on July 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-06926. The Plaintiff alleges that Uplifting Results Labs, Inc. violated California law through alleged deceptive and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing practices in connection with Uplifting Results Labs, Inc.'s dietary supplement previously marketed as "Supergut GLP-1 Booster" and currently marketed as "Supergut GLP-1 Daily Support" (the "Product"). Uplifting Results Labs, Inc. denies liability and denies that the Plaintiff or any putative class member suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in the complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Josephine C. Hall, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.229.9900 Facsimile: 310.229.9901 Email: anrothman@venable.com jchall@venable.com WALMART INC: White Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KYLE WHITE, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2603245, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07689 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Walmart violated the California Labor Code by: (1) failing to pay minimum wages; (2) failing to pay overtime wages; (3) failing to authorize, permit, and/or make available meal and rest periods; (4) failing to reimburse business expenses; (5) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) accruing waiting time penalties. The Plaintiff also alleges Walmart engaged in unfair business practices violating the California Unfair Competition Law by "misclassifying app-based drivers as contractors rather than as employees". Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational discount store operator.[BN] Defendant Walmart Inc. is represented by: Scott Voelz, Esq. Randall W. Edwards, Esq. Paul A. Holton, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2811 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: svoelz@omm.com redwards@omm.com pholton@omm.com WESTERN OILFIELDS: Dowdy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Oilfields Supply Company. The case is styled as Christina Dowdy, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Western Oilfields Supply Company doing business as Rain for Rent, Case No. 26CUB02601 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Western Oilfields Supply Company doing business as Rain for Rent -- https://www.rainforrent.com/ -- is a family-owned provider of liquid handling solutions established in 1934.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 300 San Diego, CA 92108-3838 Phone: 619-693-4007 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com WOODBRIDGE, NJ: Faces Class Suit Over Overtime Pay Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Heath of NJ.com reports that a Middlesex County fire district and several of its officials are facing a class action lawsuit alleging firefighters were not paid for overtime. The suit, filed on June 25 in Middlesex County Superior Court, claims Woodbridge Township Fire District No. 1 did not compensate firefighters for work beyond 40 hours per week, in violation of state law. The lawsuit was brought by firefighter David Hines, a battalion chief listed on the Woodbridge Fire Department website, on behalf of himself and other firefighters. The lawsuit names Woodbridge Township Fire District No. 1, its Board of Fire Commissioners and several commissioners. An attorney representing Hines and the other firefighters did not immediately respond to a request for comment. District officials could not be reached for comment. The suit claims Hines and the other firefighters have endured financial losses due to the alleged violations. The firefighters have routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, according to the complaint. The lawsuit asks a judge to allow the case to proceed as a class action and to rule that the district broke New Jersey wage laws. It also seeks payment for workers' unpaid or underpaid wages and expenses, attorneys fees, a court order requiring the district to follow state wage laws and other relief. [GN] WRIGHT EQUITIES INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wright Equities, Inc. The case is styled as Yolanda Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Wright Equities, Inc., Case No. 26CU01848 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., July 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Wright Equities Inc. -- https://www.wrightequities.com/ -- is a California-based property management firm exclusively focused on the multifamily housing sector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ZYMERGEN INC: $125MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Zymergen Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION BIAO WANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ZYMERGEN INC. ("ZYMERGEN") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS APRIL 2021 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable P. Casey Pitts at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the action ("Action") as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $125,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77z-1(a)(4) out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October 11, 2026) or electronically via the website (no later than October 11, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 11, 2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired Zymergen common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. You may review the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), access the Proof of Claim, and find the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.ZymergenSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator: Zymergen Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 Telephone: 1-888-858-5903 info@ZymergenSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries should NOT be directed to Settling Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com No further exclusion opportunity is being provided under the Settlement. Because no Class Member validly excluded themselves previously when notice was provided, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §77z-1(a)(4) IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY SEPTEMBER 22, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: June 22, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Faces $32MM Verdict in Talc Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Travis Rodgers, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $32 million to the family of Maria Lozano. The lawsuit accused the company of manufacturing a defective product and failing to warn consumers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated talc in its baby powder. Lozano used Johnson's Baby Powder daily for more than 50 years, applying it to herself and her children regularly. Her husband also used the product. Doctors diagnosed her with pleural mesothelioma in 2023 and she filed a personal injury lawsuit. After her death in 2024, her children, John Lozano, Araceli Lenard-Lozano and Jeanette Lozano, continued the talc lawsuit as a wrongful death lawsuit. The family's attorneys presented internal corporate records and expert testimony at trial. They showed the jury that J&J knew about the risks of asbestos contamination in its talc products for decades but didn’t warn consumers. Attorney Danny Kraft, who represented the family at trial, said “The jury carefully considered the evidence and concluded that Maria Lozano’s mesothelioma was caused by decades of exposure to asbestos-contaminated Johnson’s Baby Powder.” Lozano's legal team also showed that J&J had internal data for decades highlighting asbestos contamination at its mining and processing sites. The jury found the company didn’t act on that information or warn the public. “Maria Lozano spent decades trusting and using J&J’s baby powder on herself and her children,” attorney Mark Linder explained. “The jury saw the devastating consequences of that exposure and returned a verdict that holds Johnson & Johnson accountable for the harm caused to this family.” J&J argued that environmental factors, other cosmetic brands and her husband's automotive work were the cause of Lozano's asbestos exposure. The jury rejected all of those arguments and placed full responsibility on J&J. J&J sold talc-based baby powder for more than a century. Lab tests detected asbestos in its products from 1971 through the early 2000s. The company never reported those findings to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It didn’t stop selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. until 2020 and globally until 2023. In March 2026, the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet retracted a nearly 50-year-old paper that defense attorneys had long used to argue cosmetic talc doesn't cause cancer. Public health historians showed the paper's author, a J&J consultant, shared an advance draft with the company and revised it based on its feedback before publication. The Lancet called that undisclosed relationship a "clear breach of publishing ethics." Plaintiffs' attorneys say they plan to use the retraction directly in upcoming trials. The company tried multiple times to end its talc liabilities through a legal strategy known as the "Texas Two-Step," creating subsidiaries to absorb its lawsuits and filing for bankruptcy. A federal judge rejected its most recent attempt, a proposed $8 billion settlement, in March 2025. After that third rejection, J&J abandoned the strategy and announced it would litigate each remaining case individually. Verdicts mounted quickly after that. In October 2025, a Los Angeles jury awarded $966 million to the family of Mae K. Moore. After reviewing court documents in the case, the jury answered "yes" to the question "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice, oppression or fraud in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability?" In December 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded $1.5 billion to Cherie Craft, a Maryland woman diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, the largest single-plaintiff talc verdict ever recorded. That same month, a Minnesota jury awarded $65.5 million to a mother of three with pleural mesothelioma. In February 2026, a Philadelphia jury found J&J liable for the death of Gayle Emerson from ovarian cancer. Emerson had used the company's baby powder for more than 45 years. J&J now faces roughly 60,000 remaining talc-related claims in courts across the country, and it says it plans to appeal the Lozano verdict. ********* 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 ***