260727.mbx

260727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 27, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 148 Headlines 3CS2 LLC: Court OKs $19K Bill in "Rodriguez" 3DEO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarrete Jr. Alleges 4701 COCONUT CREEK: Norkunas Sues Over Property's Access Barriers 6516 F&B: Removes Pax Class Suit to C.D. Cal. 9055-7588 QUEBEC: Hooper Sues Over Misleading Product Labels ABC PHONES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Webb Says ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Medina Says ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Says ALBERTSONS CO: Olson Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. ALLERGAN INC: Rabin's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ALLERGAN INC: Villareal Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ALLERGOSAN USA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ALLSIDES TECHNOLOGIES: Uses Illegal Data Trackers, St. Mary Says AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Put Redacted Parts of Exhibits Under Seal AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 10, 2027 AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Partly OK'd AMTRUST FINANCIAL: $19MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 19 APPLE INC: Faces Alvarez Suit Over "Hide My Email" Feature ARVIDA LABS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 26 ASP ISOTOPES: Class Settlement in Leone Suit Gets Initial Nod AT&T INC: Scott Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal ATLANTIC UNION: Ray's Bid to Certify Class Tossed AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Violates Consumer Protection Law, Green Says AVLO MANAGEMENT: Molina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BEE GIRL: Ananieva Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA, IMWL BEIERSDORF INC: Mulconrey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BELLESA ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 16 BESTWAY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Alleges BETTER TAX: Seeks Dismissal of McBride FAC BHC SIERRA: Roe Sues Over Minor Patients' Physical and Mental Abuse BOSE CORPORATION: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BPREP VANTAGE: Class Settlement in Fogy Suit Gets Final Nod BROOKLINEN INC: Velasco Suit Removed to W.D. Washington C & M LANDSCAPE: Faces Salazar Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CALIBRE INTERNATIONAL: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees CALIFORNIA FORENSIC: Vizgaudis-Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CAPITAL ONE: Moore Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California CATALINOS BERRY FARMS: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHALLENGE MFG: Thomsen Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moore Alleges CHORBIE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Petersen Alleges COACHELLA MUSIC: Website Uses Tracking Software, Haviland Says COMMUNITY CARE: Underpays Hospital Employees, Rivera Suit Claims COMPASS INC: Seeks Denial of Cribier Bid to Amend Scheduling Order COMPUTER MERCHANT: Class Settlement in Flores Gets Final Nod COOLSYS LIGHT: Randolph Case Remanded to Santa Clara Super. Court CORP911 INC: Faces Jendro Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. COSTA DEL MAR: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Ross Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. CRISSAIR INC: Quintanilla Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Hourly Staff CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bernholtz Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. CSI AVIATION: Faces Bonilla Class Action Suit Over Rendition Scheme CUSTOM BUILDING: Class Cert Filing in Cazares Due March 1, 2027 DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Class Cert. Bid Tossed DAVITA INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Meal Break Suit DENTAQUEST GROUP: Prakash Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Hardy Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. DOLGENCORP LLC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says DOT TRANSPORTATION: Joint Status Report Due August 10 DYSON DIRECT: Ortiz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations EARNEST LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Reato Case Referred to Magistrate Judge ELEVANCE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Nixon Suit Gets Final Nod ELY LASSMAN: Standing Order Entered in Baney Class Action ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in Copeland Seek to Stay Fact Discovery ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in PPI Seek to Stay Fact Discovery ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in Schuman Seek to Stay Fact Discovery ESTEE LAUDER: Pending Class Cert Bids Tossed w/ Prejudice EVERBRIDGE INC: Filing for Initial OK of Settlement Due August 10 FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: D.C. Circuit Upholds $812M Jury Verdict FAT BRAIN TOYS: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Howards Due March 15, 2027 FIVE BELOW: Johns Sues Over Unfair Tariff-Related Overcharges FIVE STAR: Hudson Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Credit Report FLOWERS FOODS: Tuennerman Sues Over Bakery Bags' "Recyclable" Label FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Florida Consumer Class FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Filing in Charton Extended to Dec. 21 FRONTIER AIRLINES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beach Alleges FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GARFIELD BEACH: Removes Mendez Suit to C.D. Calif. GEICO GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply GEICO: Cox Suit Removed to E.D. California GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief GRACO CHILDREN'S: Perica Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection GREENSKY INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Definition OK'd HALFDAY TONICS: Faces Kluge Suit Over Beverages' False Ads HEART OF AMERICA EYE CARE: Yohn Suit Removed to D. Kansas HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Myking Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HP INC: Hillaire Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HUSSMANN CORP: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. Cal. ILLINOIS: Adams Seeks Class Certification IN THINGS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS: Laird Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio INNS MANAGEMENT: Rangel Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Licensed Nurses INVITAE CORP: B.W. Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ill. IRHYTHM TECH: Class Settlement in Glazing Suit Gets Initial Nod ITS TECHNOLOGIES: McGivney Sues Over Biometric Data Violations JANI-KING INT'L: Cossette Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order JANIE AND JACK: Gautam Suit Removed to W.D. Washington JB HUNT: Class Certification Bid in Watson Suit Due June 24, 2027 JULIAN ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortega Alleges KROGER CO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Reid Alleges LADIES TOUCH INC: Pedroso Suit Removed to C.D. California LAKE MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Underpays Employees, Hardy Suit Says LAN PRINTING: Shao Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Printshop Staff LCS COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bids in Wandrey Suit Due Sept. 6, 2027 LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL: McKoy Sues Over Unpaid Wages LENS.COM INC: Franks Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal LENS.COM INC: Franks Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes LIV GROUP INC: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LLOYD'S LONDON: $3.57MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 23 LOAN STORE: Dukes Seeks Conditional Collective Certification LORETTO REST: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cruz Extended to Sept. 15 LOUIS VUITTON: Torres Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. LOWE'S COMPANIES: Yu Sues Over Garden Tools' Defective Batteries LTIMINDTREE LTD: Pineda Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Cir. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Brooks Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Palmer Suit to 4th Circuit MASH VH: Soontrarom Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Technicians MCKINLEY PAPER: Class Certification Filing Extended to Sept. 4 MDL 3035: AMEC's Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd MDL 3179: Plaintiffs' Bid for Curative Communication OK'd MEGAN HOLDINGS: Mundy Sues Over Exchange Act Violation META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Hearing in Gershzon Set for August 5 META PLATFORMS: Delgado Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched MICHAEL CARVAJAL: Crespo Allowed to File SAC MICROSOFT CORP: Hastings Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. MICROSOFT CORP: Qualtrics Seek to Seal Class Cert Opposition MIDWEST LAND: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says MINERAL MOON: Purscelley Sues Over Deceptive Renewal Policy MISSION PRODUCE: Kachuck Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. MOCHI MEDICAL: Cioppettini Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina MONEYLION TECH: Yee Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. MOUNT VERNON, ME: Legendre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages MOVADO GROUP: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website MOVOTO INC: Kaznecki TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida MR. CHOW ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marzillier Says MSWF OHIO LLC: Villasenor Files Suit in N.D. Ohio MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadline NARA ORGANICS: Sells Contaminated Infant Formula, Pragovich Says NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Partially Allows Saylor Testimony NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Authors Suit NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit NATIONAL TRADE: Akselrod Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD: Crow Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NEORA LLC: Lipton Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NESPRESSO USA: Rolston Sues Over Improper Data Collection OOFOS INC: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington OTO DEVELOPMENT: Urrutia Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. PACIFIC MARITIME: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Fowler Labor Suit PENTAIR WATER POOL: Toledo Suit Removed to C.D. California PINNACLE SERVICES: Hartman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PLANETART LLC: Russo Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Websites PRINCESS CRUISE LINES: Martinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sneed Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Hancock Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty QUALDERM PARTNERS: Discloses Patients' Info to Google, Suit Claims QUAY EYEWARE: Chavez-Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington RAPID FIRE: Rainey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unjust Enrichment RAW SPORT: Ruchman Sues Over Protein Shakes' Deceptive Labels RAYMOND JAMES: Expert Disclosure Deadline Extended to July 31 RESTAURANT DEPOT: Parties Referred to Magistrate Judge ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Rosado Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Zon Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. RUM GROUP: Appeals Court Order in Goldstein Suit to 9th Circuit SEAWORLD PARKS: Sends Misleading Commercial e-mails, Jackson Says SIGNATURE DESIGN: Raymundo Seeks to Recover Regular and OT Pay SKY ZONE: Meyer Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragrance Products SPANX LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Russo Suit Alleges SPECIALTY TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPECTRUM PHARMA: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 20 STATE FARM: Bradley Sues Over Insurance Policy's UIM Coverage STATUS AUDIO: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website STUBHUB INC: Illegally Sells World Cup Tickets, Stasium Suit Says TASTY DELICIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Johnson Says TENNESSEE: Lucy Class Action Suit Challenges Section 1 of H.B. 1704 TEXAS HEALTH: Strong Appeals Court Order to 2nd Ct. of Appeals TRANS UNION: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Kaplan Suit to 3rd Cir. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Bessemer Alleges TUMI INC: Ahmed Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Fla. UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Delivery Drivers & Unloaders, Reeves Says UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Gamez Suit to 9th Cir. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Madison Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages USAA CASUALTY: Newell Class Suit Removed to D.S.C. VITA COCO: Camacho Class Suit Seeks Tariff Overcharges' Refund WILLOW HEALTH: Wilce Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure YKK AP: Faces Peters Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info YKK AP: Tague Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Private Data ********* 3CS2 LLC: Court OKs $19K Bill in "Rodriguez" -------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lillyana Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3CS2 LLC d/b/a The Back Porch and Ken Strickler, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00693-B-BT (N.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge R. Rutherford of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part Plaintiff's Application for Legal Fees and Costs. Following a January 6, 2026 hearing on Plaintiff's Discovery Motions, the court had struck Defendants' Answer as a sanction for their failure to participate in the case and ordered Plaintiff to file an application establishing reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff sought $18,252.00 in fees, $916.66 in costs, and post-judgment interest. Defendants filed no response. On fees, the court calculated the lodestar using attorney Allen R. Vaught's rate of $520 an hour, finding it reasonable given his 27 years of experience and Dallas-area market rates. Vaught billed 39 hours on the Discovery Motions and voluntarily reduced that figure by 10 percent, or 3.9 hours, resulting in 35.10 compensable hours. Defendants did not object to the rate or the hours. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting adjustment under the Johnson factors and set the lodestar, and the fee award, at $18,252.00. On costs, the court awarded the full $916.66 requested. This included $441.73 for court reporting services tied to 3CS2 LLC's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, which the entity failed to attend without substantial justification, and $474.93 for Plaintiff's efforts to personally serve Defendants with the court's Order Setting Hearing, made necessary by Defendants' repeated unresponsiveness. On post-judgment interest, the court denied the request without prejudice. Plaintiff had relied on Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., where interest issued because that court had entered various monetary judgments. Here, although the court entered judgment striking Defendants' Answer and entering default, it had not yet ruled on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Default Judgment. The court held Plaintiff may re-urge the interest request once a final judgment issues. The court granted in part Plaintiff's Application for Legal Fees and Costs, awarding $18,252.00 in attorney's fees and $916.66 in costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and (d)(3), payable jointly and severally by Defendants by August 14, 2026. The request for post-judgment interest was denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion and Order dated July 16, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WH201 from PacerMonitor.com 3DEO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarrete Jr. Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ELISEO NAVARRETE JR., individually and on behalf of all others individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3DEO, INC.; MATTHEW PETROS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV 21783 (Cal., Super., Los Angles Cty., July 10, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Navarrete Jr. was employed by the Defendants as an R&D technician. 3deo Inc. is engaged in metal 3D printing and additive manufacturing. The Company produces high-volume small metal parts and components, offers Design for Additive Manufacturing services, and provides end-to-end manufacturing using proprietary technology. 3deo Inc. serves engineering and product development teams across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young W. Ryu, Esq. Zachariah E. Moura, Esq. Kee Seok Mah, Esq. Harley M. Phleger, Esq. Guanchen Liu, Esq. LOYR, APC 1055 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 318-5323 Facsimile: (800) 576-1170 Email: young.ryu@loywr.com zach.moura@loywr.com kee.mah@loywr.com guanchen.liu@loywr.com Harley.phleger@loywr.com 4701 COCONUT CREEK: Norkunas Sues Over Property's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM NORKUNAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 4701 COCONUT CREEK PARKWAY, LLC and LESTER'S OF MARGATE, LLC D/B/A LESTERS DINER II A/K/A LESTER'S DINER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24618 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such entrance access and path of travel and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. 4701 Coconut Creek Parkway, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator based in Florida. Lester's of Margate, LLC, doing business as Lesters Diner II, also known as Lester's Diner, is a commercial property owner and operator based in 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 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com 6516 F&B: Removes Pax Class Suit to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CINDY PAZ; and MAYRA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 6516 F&B MANAGER, LLC; 6516 HOTEL MANAGER, LLC; 1541 HOTEL MANAGER LLC; TEN FIVE HOSPITALITY LLC; 6516 TOMMIE HOLDINGS, LLC; 6516 TOMMIE HOTEL HOLDINGS, LLC; 6516 TOMMIE LP; CONTRACT SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 25STCV33533) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07758 to the proceeding. 6516 F&B Manager, LLC operates as a food and beverage management company. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Megan Childress, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 647-0005 Email: mchildress@ohaganmeyer.com 9055-7588 QUEBEC: Hooper Sues Over Misleading Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ COURTNEY HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 9055-7588 QUEBEC INC. D/B/A ATTITUDE, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07258 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's ATTITUDE-brand personal care and household products that bear a front-label representation and specified percentage "natural origin." According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently represents on the front label that the product is a specific percentage "natural origin" -- for example, "97.9% NATURAL ORIGIN" on the 2-in-1 Shampoo & Body Wash and "98% NATURAL ORIGIN" on the Baby Bottle Dishwashing Liquid. The Defendant sells the products under its "natural care" house brand and its "baby leaves" line, accompanied by botanical and leaf imagery that reinforce the impression that the products are natural. The Defendant makes the Natural Origin Representation on the products' packaging and in its online marketing, including on Amazon.com and at attitudeliving.com The Plaintiff asserts that the Natural Origin Representation is false and misleading. Reasonable consumers understand a claim that a product is, for example, "98% natural origin" to mean that the product is composed almost entirely of ingredients that come from nature. Stated differently, reasonable consumers understand that when Defendant says a product is "98% natural origin," it means that 98% of the product's formulation -- whether measured by weight, volume, or number of ingredients -- consists of ingredients genuinely originating from nature, not industrially synthesized molecules. No reasonable consumer would understand the "98% natural origin" claim to mean that an industrially synthesized surfactant qualifies as "natural origin" merely because the natural feedstock from which it was manufactured once comprised the majority of the starting material's mass, says the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for violations of (1) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3) California's False Advertising Law; (4) violations of Consumer Protection Statutes; (5) breach of express warranties; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7) negligent misrepresentation. 9055-7588 Quebec Inc., d/b/a ATTITUDE, manufactures personal care and household products with its principal place of business in Montreal, Quebec.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nsari@gucovschilaw.com ABC PHONES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Webb Says ----------------------------------------------------- LEA WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. d/b/a VICTRA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00484-D-BM (E.D.N.C., July 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant Victra for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their private information. Despite Victra's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their private information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to an employee of Defendant's email account and exfiltrated sensitive data on April 22, 2026. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information is now exposed to cybercriminals, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risks which may last for the rest of their lives, the complaint adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Victra Inc. is the largest exclusive Verizon Authorized Retailer in the United States, operating over 1,800 locations across all 50 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ PLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: jmartin@awkolaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Medina Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04658 (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or no later than June 15, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. AdaptHealth Corp. is a national provider of home medical equipment, mobility products, and related in-home healthcare services based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 559-6072 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DOROTHY BIEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Case No. 2:26-cv-04974 (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) entrusted to the Defendant in connection with its healthcare-related products and services. The Plaintiff was a patient/customer whose information was maintained by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has received oxygen-support services through the entity that became part of AdaptHealth's operations and has remained a patient/customer since approximately 2021. On or about June 15, 2026, the Defendant learned that a threat actor claimed to have obtained data from the Defendant's systems. The Defendant later disclosed that unauthorized access occurred within its cloud-based environment and involved sensitive data, including passwords associated with insurance billing, personally identifiable information, and protected health information of patients. The Defendant allegedy collects, stores, and maintains sensitive PII and PHI from patients and customers as part of its business operations, says the suit. AdaptHealth is a national provider of home medical equipment and related healthcare services, including respiratory and oxygen-related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com ALBERTSONS CO: Olson Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON OLSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV191145 (Filed June 1, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07321 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Olson filed a putative Class Complaint against Albertsons alleging use of certain e-commerce and analytics technologies on its public website, https://www.safeway.com/. The Plaintiff purports to represent a putative nationwide class, consisting of "all United States residents who accessed the Website two years prior to the filing date of this Complaint," as well as a putative subclass, consisting of "all California residents who accessed the Website in California one year prior to the filing date of this Complaint." The Complaint lodges a claim on behalf of the putative Nationwide Class under the federal wiretap statute. Albertsons is an American food and drug retailer operating over 2,200 stores across 34 states, with store brands like Safeway, Vons, and Jewel-Osco.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. James W. Ettinger, Esq. Jacobo Enrique Rueda Fernandez, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS CADWALADER US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 E-mail: vassi.iliadis@hlc.com jay.ettinger@hlc.com jacobo.rueda@hlc.com ALLERGAN INC: Rabin's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rabin v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-4222 (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=vbl0Xg at no extra charge.[CC] ALLERGAN INC: Villareal Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villareal et al., v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-14796 (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=OSndnm at no extra charge.[CC] ALLERGOSAN USA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case TAWNYA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGOSAN USA, LLC, d/b/a WWW.OMNIBIOTICLIFE.COM, Case No. 26CU032234C, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 13, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04017-LL-JAC to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of California Civil Code and California Business & Professions Code. AllergoSan USA, LLC, doing business as www.omnibioticlife.com, is a manufacturer of probiotic products, headquartered in Port Chester, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas A. Roethlisberger, Esq. KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 630-2350 Email: nroethlisberger@kblfirm.com ALLSIDES TECHNOLOGIES: Uses Illegal Data Trackers, St. Mary Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE ST. MARY, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ALLSIDES TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07687 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who have accessed and used www.allsides.com -- a website that Defendant provides for public access and use, pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting in human readable terms what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the suit. The Plaintiff says that she navigated multiple pages on the website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the content of her communications and reveal her content interests. AllSides Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and controls the website, an online news-aggregation and media bias rating platform through which AllSides publishes news aggregation, headline roundups, and media-bias analyses available to readers across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Put Redacted Parts of Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to maintain under seal the redacted portions of the exhibits attached to the class certification papers and to maintain entirely under seal documents that are wholly confidential. Amazon requests that the Court maintain under seal: the Defendant's Exs. 1-B and 1-C, which contain summary tables and statistics of Amazon's transaction data. Amazon also requests that the Court maintain under seal the redacted portions of: Plaintiffs' Exs. 1, 2, 36, 37 and the Defendant's Exs. 1, 1-A, and 1-D, which are expert reports and appendices that describe, summarize, and analyze relevant Amazon's internal sensitive and propriety information; and Plaintiffs' Exs. 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 28 and the Defendant's Exs. 8, 11-12, which are correspondence, financial reports, and deposition excerpts that describe, summarize, and analyze relevant Amazon's internal sensitive and propriety information. To the extent the Court determines to deny certain of the proposed redactions, Amazon requests the opportunity to submit a revised motion to seal to address any concerns the Court may have. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology and e-commerce company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEZpVP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5901 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due March 10, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHYN BOYD, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04725-MWF-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to further Continue the Defendants' responsive pleadings deadline, and the Plaintiff's class certification and briefing schedule. The Court orders as follows: 1. The Defendants American Medical Response, Inc., American Medical Response West, and Global Medical Response, Inc.'s responsive pleading deadline is extended to Aug. 7, 2026. 2. The extended deadlines for the class certification briefing and hearing are: a. Motion for Class Certification ("MCC"): March 10, 2027 b. Opposition to MCC: April 14, 2027 c. Reply in Support of MCC: April 28, 2027 d. Hearing on MCC: May 12, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The briefing and hearing have been set pursuant to the Court’s current procedures. American is a private ambulance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WYMosN at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY R. CRADDOCK, v. AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00209 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Goodwin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply. The Clerk is directed to file the Sur-Reply. The court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. The Court concludes that the Defendant's reply contains limited argument and authority that were not meaningfully developed in its opening memorandum. The Plaintiff has demonstrated a limited need to respond, particularly with respect to Defendant's discussion of W. Va. Code section 17A4A-2a(e). However, substantial portions of the proposed Sur-Reply exceed that purpose and revisit arguments already presented in Plaintiff s Response. The Court will therefore consider only those portions of the Sur-Reply directed to matters first raised in the Defendant's Reply. AmeriCredit provides auto finance services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mtMCDb at no extra charge.[CC] AMTRUST FINANCIAL: $19MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the AmTrust Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01545-LAK CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED: (A) AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. ("AMTRUST") COMMON STOCK ISSUED IN AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE PUBLIC OFFERING CONDUCTED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 11, 2015, WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY; AND/OR (B) AMTRUST 6.95% NON-CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES F, ISSUED IN AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE PUBLIC OFFERING CONDUCTED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 27, 2016, WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY 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, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Court"), that the above-captioned action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class action with respect to this Settlement only, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Classes by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Partial Settlement dated June 8, 2026 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at www.AmTrustSecuritiesLitigation.com. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that North Atlantic States Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds ("Lead Plaintiff") and plaintiffs Jupiter Capital Management and the Irving Lichtman Revocable Living Trust (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and defendants AmTrust, Barry D. Zyskind, Kristin Pipoly, Executrix of the Estate of Ronald Pipoly, Jr., Donald T. DeCarlo, Susan C. Fisch, Abraham Gulkowitz, George Karfunkel, Jay J. Miller, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and UBS Securities LLC (collectively, "Settling Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation on behalf of the Classes for $19,000,000 in cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation against the Settling Defendants but litigation will continue against non-settling defendant BDO USA, P.C. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the partial Settlement of the above-captioned Litigation against the Settling Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation for $19 million 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 Litigation against the Settling Defendants with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Plaintiffs their costs and expenses in representing the Classes out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Classes. It is important that you check the Settlement website, www.AmTrustSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the website. IF YOU PURCHASED: (A) AMTRUST COMMON STOCK ISSUED IN AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE PUBLIC OFFERING CONDUCTED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 11, 2015, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY; AND/OR (B) AMTRUST 6.95% NON-CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES F, ISSUED IN AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE PUBLIC OFFERING CONDUCTED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 27, 2016, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. 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 7, 2026) or electronically via the website (no later than October 7, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 7, 2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the partial Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Classes (as described below), you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the partial Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the partial Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.AmTrustSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to or calling: AmTrust Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 info@AmTrustSecuritiesLitigation.com 1-888-808-8452 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Settling Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com 1-800-449-4900 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASSES, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 28, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASSES, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASSES IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE LAWSUIT AGAINST SETTLING DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THE OTHER RELEASED SETTLING DEFENDANT PARTIES CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY THE PARTIAL SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED ONE-THIRD OF THE $19 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $550,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE REQUEST FOR AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR COSTS AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND SETTLING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY OCTOBER 28, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: June 12, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK APPLE INC: Faces Alvarez Suit Over "Hide My Email" Feature ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-07274 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2026) asserts claims under California statutory and common law, and seeks, on behalf of four Classes, monetary damages to recover the unlawful price premium and subscription costs that consumers paid for Apple's mirage of email privacy as well as injunctive relief to ensure Apple ceases its deceptive conduct and either delivers the privacy protection it promised or clearly discloses that it cannot. According to the complaint, Apple continues to hold itself out as a company built on consumer privacy and continues to mislead consumers into believing that Hide My Email in-fact keeps their email addresses hidden and private. Apple has known of the problem for over a year, and the flaw remains unfixed to this day -- all while Apple continues to profit from Hide My Email and from its promises of privacy. The Plaintiff is one of the millions of customers who paid Apple for iCloud+ and relied on Apple's representations that Hide My Email would keep his personal email address hidden. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid Apple for their privacy—iCloud+ subscribers though the price-premium built into iCloud+ subscription fees, and all Apple customers through the price premium built into Apple products that Apple markets as including enhanced privacy protections and features such as Hide My Email, says the suit. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Stephanie T. Reed, Esq. 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 692-7621 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com stephanie@almeidalawgroup.com ARVIDA LABS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 26 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARABLE BOTANICALS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, v. ARVIDA LABS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-03037-RLP (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Pennell entered a scheduling order as follows: Discovery cutoff: Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline to add parties, amend pleadings, Oct. 26, 2026 and file for class certification: Daubert motions: Dec. 11, 2026 Dispositive motions: Jan. 12, 2027 Pretrial conference: May 13, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Bench trial: May 24, 2027 Arvida is a manufacturer and bulk processor of rare cannabinoids. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=03fDux at no extra charge.[CC] ASP ISOTOPES: Class Settlement in Leone Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK LEONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. ASP ISOTOPES INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09253-CM-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. -- The Court certifies the Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of ASPI between Sept. 26, 2024 and Nov. 26, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby as alleged in the Action." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of ASPI, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest, and any trust of which the Defendant Mann is the settlor or which is for the benefit of Defendant Mann and/or member(s) of his immediate family. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. -- Lead Plaintiff Mark Leone is certified as the class representative for the settlement class. The Court also confirms its appointment of Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. -- The Court will hold a settlement hearing on Dec. 15, 2026, at 12:30 p.m. ASP is engaged in developing and commercializing uranium enrichment technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x856k4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garth Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Blanchard, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 AT&T INC: Scott Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Scott, Patricia Gilchrist, Karen Fisher, Helen Maldonado-Valtierra, John Griffin, Kenneth Rhodes, Judy Dougherty, John Kelly, Richard Walshon, Dan Koval, Jennifer Fryer, and Vince Carabba, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. and the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan, Case No. 3:20-cv-07094-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 13, 2026 at 11 a.m., will move the Court to enter an order under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; 2. Certifying the Settlement Class and SubClasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). 3. Approving the proposed Class Settlement notice as to form and content and the plan for dissemination of notice to the Class; 4. Appointing Atticus as the Settlement Administrator; 5. Setting the date and time for the Fairness Hearing; and 6. Setting dates and deadlines under Rule 23(d) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order for the Court to evaluate whether the settlement should be given final approval (after distribution of the proposed class notice to the Class and submission of any objections to the settlement) and to evaluate the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses and the Plaintiffs' request for class representative service awards as follows: Deadline for service of CAFA notices: July 19, 2026 Deadline for the Defendants to provide July 30, 2026 Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel data for class notice distribution: The Settlement Agreement defines the Class and SubClasses as follows: Injunction/Equitable Relief Class: "All Plan participants and their beneficiaries, excluding those participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program, the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV Program, who are receiving a Joint and Survivor Annuity calculated pursuant to tabular factors set forth in the Plan, or who would receive a Joint and Survivor Annuity calculated pursuant to tabular factors set forth in the Plan upon electing a Joint and Survivor Annuity." Retired SubClass: "All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who are receiving a Joint and Survivor Annuity that is less than the value of their Single Life Annuity when converted to a Joint and Survivor Annuity using the interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26 U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability period and November lookback month, based on the participant's Benefit Payment Status on the date the Court enters the Final Approval Order and excluding those participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program, the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV Program." This SubClass also shall exclude all persons identified in Exhibits A, B, and D to the declaration of Jack Abraham dated Jan. 31, 2025. Pre-Retirement SubClass: "All Plan participants and their beneficiaries who are not in Benefit Payment Status as of the date the Court enters the Final Approval Order and would receive a Joint and Survivor Annuity calculated pursuant to tabular factors set forth in the Plan upon electing a Joint and Survivor Annuity, excluding those participants and beneficiaries in the Mobility Program, the Mobility Bargained Program, and the DIRECTV Program." The proposed Settlement provides more than $149 million in value to Class members in the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan (the “Plan”). AT&T is an American multinational telecommunications holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sXzcxc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd Jackson, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 Facsimile: (510) 269-7994 E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com nina@feinbergjackson.com - and - Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. Daniel J. Sutter, Esq. Caroline Bressman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com krichter@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Rachana A. Pathak, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: rpathak@stris.com - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu ATLANTIC UNION: Ray's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Gibney, Jr. entered a judgment denying the Bank's motion to dismiss, denying Ray's motion to certify a class, and granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment. Because Ray has evidence of a redressable injury traceable to the Bank, he has standing. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Bank's motion to dismiss. Further, the Court will deny the motion for class certification because Ray has failed to prove that all class members received the same allegedly defective notice. Finally, the Court will grant the Bank's motion for summary judgment because the CFPB's model language adequately described its overdraft program. Ray asks the Court to certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All of Defendant's checking account holders who, from Feb. 19, 2024, to present, were opted into overdraft protection for onetime debit card transactions and ATM transactions and were assessed overdraft fees on these transactions." Ray brings this class action alleging a violation of Regulation E. He argues that the Bank's form failed to adequately describe the timing or method of assessing overdraft fees. The Defendant offers a wide range of financial solutions including checking accounts, savings accounts, and business loans. A copy of the Court's opinion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tOlKNR at no extra charge.[CC] AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Violates Consumer Protection Law, Green Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANAVIA GREEN and JAMES CRUZ, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04086-TWR-JAC (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating numerous landlord-tenant and consumer protection laws. The complaint relates that the Defendant charges full market rent and then adds solar fees, technology Fees, and related charges on top, even though many of the underlying services including electrical systems, water-leak detection, etc. are obligations the law requires Defendant to bear as a basic cost of operating rental property. The Defendant knows that the "contested fees" are not lawful charges. When Defendant is required to justify certain Contested Fees (specifically the Recovery Fees and the Vacant Unit Fees) during unlawful detainer proceedings, it dismisses its case, removes the challenged fees, and begins the process again against the same tenants. Only Defendant knows how many unrepresented tenants were evicted due to these fees and how many current tenants continue to be charged such fees. The complaint alleges that the Defendant uses deceptive marketing tactics to advertise lower rent to attract tenants without disclosing all the additional charges they will be assessed. Additionally, Defendant intentionally waits until a new tenant moves into the unit before springing additional fees, such as the Vacant Unit Fee, on the tenant. Not only is this practice deceptive, but it is extortive because the tenant's only option is to pay the fees or leave their home, as evidenced by the unlawful detainer actions defendant files. The Defendant's conduct is not done in isolation. As the head of an enterprise involving property owners, vendors, etc, Defendant makes a calculated business decision to continue to defraud its tenants, with the intention to organize efforts in a pattern of systemic larceny and fraud. Such actions are done in bad faith and done to increase the overall profitability of each unit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been harmed and damaged in several ways, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege claims pursuant to (1) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; (2) Unlawful Liquidated Damages; (3) Violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (4) Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law; (5) Violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (6) Statutory Larceny. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are requesting actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney fees, costs, and injunctive relief for Defendant to adopt new policies, practices, and procedures. Plaintiff Shanavia Green was a tenant at an apartment complex in San Diego County commonly known as Avalon Vista. Plaintiff James Cruz is, at the time of filing this complaint, a tenant at a different apartment complex in San Diego County commonly known as Eaves San Marcos. Defendant AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. is a large, publicly traded, apartment management company that owns and operates tens of thousands of rental units across major U.S. cities, especially in high-cost coastal markets like California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Katherine A. Tuohy (SBN 353967) 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 J. 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 AVLO MANAGEMENT: Molina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avlo Management, LLC. The case is styled as Chelsi Molina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avlo Management, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61905-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Avlo Management, LLC (also operating as Avlo Solutions) -- https://avlosolutions.com/ -- is an association and non-profit management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. 1650 SE 17th Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com BEE GIRL: Ananieva Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA, IMWL ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA ANANIEVA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BEE GIRL ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a HERITAGE PRAIRIE FARM, Case No. 1:26-cv-08418 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay its hourly employees overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and IMWL. The Defendant has further required or permitted its hourly employees to perform work off the clock without compensation, and has maintained a vacation policy that operates to forfeit earned vacation pay in violation of the IWPCA. The Plaintiff brings her overtime and vacation pay claims under the IMWL and IWPCA as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former hourly employees of Defendant in Illinois. The Defendant employs hourly workers in a variety of capacities in connection with its hospitality and event operations, including marketing and administrative staff, event coordinators, servers, catering staff, and venue crew. Heritage is an Illinois limited liability company that operates a full-service wedding and private event venue in Kane County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E Adams Street, No. 1401 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com BEIERSDORF INC: Mulconrey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melanie Mulconrey and Angela Madatovian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Case No. 2026LA000527 was removed from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08134. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Beiersdorf falsely and deceptively labeled its Coppertone Oil Free + Shine Control Face Sunscreen products (the "Products") as "Oil Free" when the Products allegedly contain oils, including homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, butyloctyl salicylate, butylene glycol dicaprylate/dicaprate, dibutyl adipate, and tocopherol.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Kara L. McCall, Esq. Caitlin A. Maly, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606-5085 Phone: 312-702-8700 Email: elizabeth.chiarello@alston.com kara.mccall@alston.com caitlin.maly@alston.com BELLESA ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 16 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.B., et al., v. BELLESA ENTERPRISES US, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05099-JAK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part the joint stipulation to modify order setting pretrial deadlines. The order setting pretrial deadlines is modified as follows: Event Date Last day to file motion for class Oct. 16, 2026 certification: Last day to file opposition to motion Nov. 13, 2026 for class certification: Last day to file reply in support of Nov. 30, 2026 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class Jan. 11, 2027, at certification: 8:30 a.m. Last day to conduct settlement Feb. 4, 2027 conference or mediation: Last date to file all motions: Apr. 15, 2027 Following the issuance of an order resolving the Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss, the parties may request a status conference, or submit a further stipulation or application, to address the status of the case. The Defendant is a women-led sexual wellness company that operates an adult entertainment portal and e-commerce platform. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2sUepI at no extra charge.[CC] BESTWAY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIO ESQUIVEL PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BESTWAY SANDWICHES, INC. DBA BESTWAY FOODS; and DOES 1- 50, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV2177O (Cal. Super., July 10, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Parra was employed by the Defendants as a packer. Bestway Sandwiches is a company that operates in the restaurants industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd.,#300 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 248-2944 Facsimile: (424) 355-8535 Email: justin@caworklawyer.com BETTER TAX: Seeks Dismissal of McBride FAC ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCBRIDE, et al., v. BETTER TAX RELIEF, LLC et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02258-KMW-EAP (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- dismissing all claims against Better Companies LLC and Matt Nia for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), -- dismissing or striking the Plaintiff's demand for prospective injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and –- dismissing the First Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) - with prejudice as to the Rule 12(b)(6) grounds against Better Companies LLC and Matt Nia, whose pleading defects are structural, and otherwise as the Court deems just - and granting such other relief as is appropriate. To the extent the Court finds any pleading defect potentially curable, the Defendants do not oppose dismissal without prejudice as to that defendant. Because the Plaintiff pleads no likelihood of future injury, her demand for prospective injunctive relief should be dismissed or stricken under Rule 12(b)(1). This putative class action arises from telephone calls allegedly placed to the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). Better Tax is an Irvine-based tax resolution company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pt8mOg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Olimpio L. Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP 2600 Kennedy Boulevard Jersey City, NJ 07306 Telephone: (201) 200-0900 Facsimile: (201) 200-9008 E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com - and - Mario Iskander, Esq. ISKANDER LAW, APC 1111 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 308 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (240) 439-1970 E-mail: mario@iskanderlaw.com BHC SIERRA: Roe Sues Over Minor Patients' Physical and Mental Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN J.M. ROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BHC SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL, INC., UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., UHS OF DELAWARE, INC., JOHN 2 DOE, and DOES 2-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV016019 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Unruh Act and Bane Act, sexual harassment, constructive fraud, unfair business practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring and retention, negligent failure to warn, train or educate, sexual assault, sexual battery, and gender violence. The case arises from the Defendants' systemic failure to protect and vindicate the rights of vulnerable minors while they were patients receiving behavioral health treatment at BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, located in Sacramento County, California. According to the complaint, instead of fulfilling the grand responsibility of caring for the children and adolescents in most need of help, UHS and BHC Sierra Vista Hospital have exposed their patients to physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse, by harboring abusers on their staff, failing to effectuate their mandatory duties, and by failing to enact and enforce necessary safety measures. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered harm and damages. BHC Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc. is a hospital operator based in Sacramento County, California. Universal Health Services, Inc. is a provider of behavioral health services, headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UHS of Delaware, Inc. is a provider of behavioral health services, headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guinness J. Costello, Esq. Jamie M. Majerus, Esq. GOULD GRIECO & HENSLEY 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (323) 477-2381 Email: guinness@gghlaw.com jamie@gghlaw.com BOSE CORPORATION: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Sheffield, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BOSE CORPORATION, Case No. 26-2-09170-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05761. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Washington residents who, during the class period, received a commercial email sent by Defendant, on behalf of Defendant, or with Defendant's assistance, that contained messaging in the email subject line which misrepresented the facts of a sale, deal, or promotion." The Plaintiff alleges at least eight emails between 2023 and 2026 contains "false or misleading" subject lines. The Plaintiff further alleges that "the Class is estimated to minimally contain thousands of members."[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.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 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Hannah E.M. Parman, Esq. Nicholas Traver, WSBA # 60916 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Emails: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com hannahparman@dwt.com nicholastraver@dwt.com BPREP VANTAGE: Class Settlement in Fogy Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIORGIO FOGY on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BPREP VANTAGE POINTE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MULTIFAMILY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1- 100, Case No. 3:25-cv-00622-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robinson entered an order that: 1. The Court certifies, for the purposes of settlement only, the following classes: The Settlement Class: "All Tenants who resided at Vantage Pointe at any time between Feb. 10, 2021, and the date of Preliminary Approval." The Winter 24-25 Subclass: "All Tenants who resided at Vantage Pointe at any time between Nov. 1, 2024, to Feb. 28, 2025." For both the Settlement Class and the Winter 24-25 Subclass, the term "Tenant" is defined as "any person who (1) signed a lease for an apartment at Vantage Pointe, and (2) resided in an apartment at Vantage Pointe for which they signed a lease." Both the Settlement Class and the Winter 24-25 Subclass exclude the Released Parties and all persons who filed a timely and valid Opt-Out Form. 2. The Court grants the unopposed motion for final approval and finally approves the settlement agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as fair, reasonable, and adequate. 3. The Court awards Class Counsel 25% in attorneys' fees and $12,332.63 in costs. 4. The Court awards the Plaintiff $7,000 as a service award. 5. The Court grants the Motion for Settlement Administrator costs of $23,029.40. 6. As agreed by the Parties, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres will retain jurisdiction. 7. The Clerk of the Court shall enter final judgment. BPREP is an entity associated with the ownership and management of Vantage Pointe, a 679-unit luxury apartment complex located at 1281 Ninth Avenue in downtown San Diego, California. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kSZfJk at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKLINEN INC: Velasco Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bethanie Velasco, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC., Case No. 26-2-02079-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Clark County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05757. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false or misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, actual or liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.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 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.624.0900 Facsimile: 206.386.7500 Email: vanessa.power@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com C & M LANDSCAPE: Faces Salazar Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & M LANDSCAPE INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21448 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation, failure to permit rest periods or provide compensation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee. C & M Landscape Inc. is a commercial landscaping and irrigation management services provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. Shelly Song, Esq. ARIS LLP 1 Park Plaza, Ste. 600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 807-4467 Facsimile: (949) 807-4469 Email: dhyun@arisllp.com ssong@arisllp.com CALIBRE INTERNATIONAL: Rivera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMILA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIBRE INTERNATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21470 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California's Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods or meal period premiums, failure to provide rest breaks or rest break premiums, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately February 2026 to April 2026. Calibre International, LLC is a provider of public relations services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam Kim, Esq. Yoonis Han, Esq. VERUM LAW GROUP, APC 360 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 1025 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 320-2000 Facsimile: (424) 221-5010 Email: skim@verumlg.com yhan@verumlg.com CALIFORNIA FORENSIC: Vizgaudis-Gomez Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valerie Vizgaudis-Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; WELLPATH LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV011196 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 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01156. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action against Defendants for: failure to pay wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment; and unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. George J. Theofanis, 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: alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com CAPITAL ONE: Moore Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DONOVAN MOORE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV18450 (Filed June 10, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07743 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action for: (1) Unfair Competition; (2)Failure to Pay State Minimum Wage; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Indemnify for All Necessary Expenditures and Losses; (8) Waiting Time Penalties; and (9) Failure to Provide Paid Sick Pay Wages. Plaintiff's allegations include theories of relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Capital One is an American bank holding company headquartered in Tysons, Virginia, with operations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: N R. Moses, Esq. Matthew R. Richardson, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com matthew.richardson@ogletree.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Hernandez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Carlos Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU335846 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05339-EGC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code; failed to provide off-duty meal periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof in violation of Labor Code; failed to provide off-duty rest periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof in violation of Labor Code; failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination from employment in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse employees for business expenses in violation of Labor Code; violated California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Seth M. Goldstein, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com sgoldstein@nossaman.com CATALINOS BERRY FARMS: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catalinos Berry Farms, LLC. The case is styled as Benjamin Lopez Valdez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sensata Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE069559 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Catalinos Berry Farms is a company that operates in the Crops industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com CHALLENGE MFG: Thomsen Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA THOMSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHALLENGE MFG. COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02027 (W.D. Mich., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about May 8, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Challenge Mfg. Company, LLC is manufacturer of automobile parts, with its principal place of business in Walker, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Shea, Esq. Ashley D. Shea, Esq. SHEA LAW, PLLC 26100 American Dr., 2nd Fl. Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 354-0224 Email: David.shea@shealaw.com Ashley.shea@shealaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moore Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 268TCV21786 (Cal Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 10, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Moore was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers traditional cable video programming, high-speed internet access, telephone services, advanced broadband, and digital video recorder services to residential and commercial sectors. Charter Communications Holdings operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Dr., Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com CHORBIE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Petersen Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MADS PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHORBIE, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00828 (E.D. Tex., July 10, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Petersen was employed by the Defendant as a client service representative. Chorbie, LLC offers full-service lawn care maintenance, including landscaping, fertilization, sprinklers, weed control, termite control and pest control. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, Texas 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal COACHELLA MUSIC: Website Uses Tracking Software, Haviland Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GOLDENVOICE, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02449-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal., July 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for deploying tracking software on its website. The complaint relates that the Defendants have partnered with at least one registered California data broker, The Trade Desk, Inc. ("Trade Desk"), an entity headquartered in San Francisco, California, in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. Defendants have done this by installing code and tools proprietary to Trade Desk on the Website. Defendants also partnered with at least two advertising platform and social media companies, Meta and TikTok, to accomplish such goals, by installing Meta and TikTok code on the Website. The Trade Desk, Meta and TikTok code deployed on the Website is designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses transmitted from the devices of visitors to a website on which it is deployed. The process initiated by the Trade Desk, Meta and TikTok code identifies visitors through "browser fingerprinting." Fingerprinting allows data brokers like Trade Desk and social media companies such as Meta and TikTok, to ascertain the identity of a website visitor by plotting hundreds of personal identifiers, including the visitor's geolocation, device information, identification and cross-referencing of malicious cookies installed on the visitor's devices, and other traits evident from the visitor's browsers. On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff visited the Website. When she did, data that reasonably likely identified her were transmitted to at least one data broker, and at least two advertising platform/social media companies, who used and profited from that data, along with Defendants: The Trade Desk and Meta. Defendants did not obtain a court order before using or installing the Trade Desk, Meta and TikTok code on the Website. Defendants also did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the Class Members before using this technology, asserts the complaint. Defendants' conduct caused Plaintiff and the Class members significant injuries including: invasion of their legally protected privacy rights; their loss of control over personal identifying information due to Defendants' actions; the diminution in value of their data and identity; Defendants' unauthorized creation of detailed behavioral profiles of them; their mental anguish from knowledge of secret monitoring by Defendants, Trade Desk, Meta and TikTok; and chilling effects on their free online expression and inquiry due to Defendants' conduct, including causing the ongoing monitoring of their internet activity and creation or enhancement of profiles on them for eventual sale, says the suit. Defendants' invasion of the privacy of Plaintiff and Class members damaged them and they are therefore entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, and equitable relief, the complaint contends. Plaintiff Elizabeth Haviland is a citizen of California, residing and located within the Central District of California. Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites. Defendants own and operate the Website, where they sell passes and packages (involving accommodations) to the Coachella Festival. DOE Defendants 1 through 10 as unknown entities that Defendants directed and controlled to participate in implementing or maintaining Defendants' installation and use of the Trade Desk, Meta and TikTok code on the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com COMMUNITY CARE: Underpays Hospital Employees, Rivera Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK, INC. d/b/a POWERS HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00301 (N.D. Ind., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Plaintiff Rivera has been employed by the Defendant as a Denial Resolution Specialist at its Powers Health Community Hospital Outpatient Center in St. John, Lake County, Indiana from approximately April 2023 to the present. Community Care Network, Inc., doing business as Powers Health Medical Group, is an operator of hospitals in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com - and - Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 Email: rob@indianawagelaw.com COMPASS INC: Seeks Denial of Cribier Bid to Amend Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CRIBIER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. COMPASS, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01833-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to deny Plaintiff's request to amend Amended Scheduling Order. The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to amend the Amended Scheduling Order to extend the fact discovery deadline for the limited purpose of third-party discovery on WAVV Communications LLC ("WAVV"). The Plaintiff requests that the close of fact discovery relating to certification be continued from June 8, 2026, to 45 days from the day that the Court rules on this Motion. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff had nearly six months to complete all fact discovery related to class certification, yet failed to serve a single subpoena on RedX until just three days before the original discovery cut-off date, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiff then compounded this lack of diligence by failing to identify WAVV as the holder of the call records at issue—despite RedX's subpoena response expressly disclaiming ownership of any dialer and RedX's own website publicly disclosing that it is "an authorized reseller of WAVV, LLC." The Plaintiff took no other steps—they could have sought to depose RedX and ask questions; they could have moved the Court for leave for more time before; and on. The Defendant provides residential real estate brokerage and related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iCwYWM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gemma Seidita, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: gseidita@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 630 1st Avenue, Suite 219 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net The Defendant is represented by: Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com COMPUTER MERCHANT: Class Settlement in Flores Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA FLORES and SARAH GARNER, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE COMPUTER MERCHANT, LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-00038-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorney fees, costs, and service awards. The Court approves the Settlement, and all of its terms, and directs the parties to effectuate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms, including that: 1. Simpluris be paid $48,821.12 for its services rendered as Settlement Administrator; 2. Swigart Law Group, APC, and Ben Travis Law, APC be paid a combined $152,500.00 in attorneys' fees and $7,290.55 in litigation costs for their work as Class Counsel; 3. The Plaintiff Erika Flores be awarded $2,500 for her service as Class Representative; and 4. The Plaintiff Sarah Garner be awarded $2,500 for her service as Class Representative. The Court further orders: 1. No later than Nov. 5, 2026, the parties are to file a Joint Status Report . 2. An in-person, counsel-only Settlement Disposition Conference is set for Nov. 12, 2026, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4A of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms and incorporates its prior analysis under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) as set forth in its Preliminary Approval Order (see id.) and certifies the following classes for purpose of settlement: Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." ( California Settlement Subclass: "Those individuals who are California Settlement Class Members and are eligible to receive a CCPA Cash Payment under the Settlement." Pursuant to the Settlement, the Defendant is to transfer $610,000 to an Escrow Account to set up the Settlement Fund. The Plaintiffs allege that, due to the Defendant's failure, a third party gained unauthorized access to the Defendant's computer network July 2024, compromising the personal information of approximately 34,127 individuals, which then was posted on the "dark web." The Defendant is an IT staffing company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0SPs08 at no extra charge.[CC] COOLSYS LIGHT: Randolph Case Remanded to Santa Clara Super. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUTRICIA RANDOLPH, v. COOLSYS LIGHT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-01143-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Pitts entered an order that: -- grants Randolph's motion to remand and remands this case to Santa Clara County Superior Court; -- Coolsys's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration is denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and -- Coolsys's request for judicial notice is granted. The record before the Court is inadequate to satisfy defendants' burden to establish CAFA jurisdiction. Using a class period of 555 days (June 25, 2024 through December 31, 2025) instead of 1,462 days (December 31, 2021 through December 31, 2025), and assuming Coolsys employees separated from employment at nearly uniform rates throughout the class period, the evidence suggests that the amount-in-controversy on Randolph's waiting time claim is closer to only $967,127.66 (37.96% of defendants’ $2,547,640.80 estimate for the longer period). Accordingly, the defendants have not satisfied their burden to establish that the amount in controversy here exceeds $5,000,000. Randolph's motion to remand is therefore granted. Randolph alleges that defendants maintained centralized payroll HR offices in Phoenix, Arizona, or Brea, California, and used the same wage statements for all nonexempt hourly California employees. The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of: "[a]ll persons who worked for the defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid employees in California, at any time from June 25, 2024, until the date of trial." CoolSys is a provider of commercial refrigeration and HVAC services, engineering consulting, and energy optimization solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=036agz at no extra charge.[CC] CORP911 INC: Faces Jendro Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA JENDRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORP911, INC., GEORGE MILLER, REBECCA MILLER, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21585 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation, failure to pay meal period compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements, failure to pay wages upon discharge, statutory penalties, failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages, retaliation, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tax return preparer from approximately May 24, 2025 through approximately April 17, 2026. Corp911, Inc. is a business management consultant in Burbank, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 549 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 Email: contact@slawla.com COSTA DEL MAR: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Sheffield, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., Case No. 26-2-09128-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05750. The Plaintiff contends that Rack Room violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), by allegedly sending Washington consumers, including Plaintiff "Limited Sale Emails with false and misleading information" that misleads consumers "about sale durations, inducing urgency that affects purchasing decisions," "clogs email inboxes with false information," and violates consumers "right to be free from deceptive commercial emails."[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.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 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Hannah E.M. Parman, Esq. Joshua Peck, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: (206) 757-8232 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com hannahparman@dwt.com joshpeck@dwt.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Ross Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- RAY MONDELL ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21227 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay all wages owed at termination, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to accurately accrue and pay sick leave, failure to provide suitable seating, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cashier assistant in Los Angeles, California from May 22, 2024, through approximately May 21, 2026. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an operator of warehouse retail locations in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Talal Al-Hindi, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31355 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 210 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com CRISSAIR INC: Quintanilla Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Hourly Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSELYN QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRISSAIR, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21457 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately October 21, 2021, through October 2, 2025. Crissair, Inc. is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense components based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Bradley Fagnani, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Dr., Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com bradley@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bernholtz Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CLAYTON BERNHOLTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, and CLASS VALUATION, LLC, Case No. CACE-26-009663 (Filed June 17, 2026) was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division on July 17, 2026. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61978 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges Defendant engaged in a scheme to retain significant funds without disclosing their involvement or how much money was retained by the Defendant. The Defendant is a nationwide mortgage lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec H. Schultz, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN, PLLC 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: Aschultz@hilgerslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven J. Brotman, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, LLP 777 S. Flagler Drive Suite 215 East Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 E-mail: Steven.brotman@troutman.com Irene.rabba@troutman.com litigationdocketrequests@troutman.com CSI AVIATION: Faces Bonilla Class Action Suit Over Rendition Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRY OMAR BLANCO BONILLA, WILD YAHARE CHIRINOS ROMERO, and JERCE EGBUNIK REYES BARRIOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CSI AVIATION, INC., GLOBAL CROSSING AIRLINES GROUP INC., and GLOBAL CROSSING AIRLINES, INC. d/b/a GLOBALX, Case No. 1:26-cv-02511 (D.D.C., July 17, 2026) is a class action against CSI and GlobalX who knew or should have known that rendering Plaintiffs and the Class to Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) would result in their physical and psychological suffering. According to the complaint, in March 2025, Defendants -- knowingly rendered over 230 Venezuelan migrants to confinement in inhumane conditions and torture in El Salavador, a country with which they had no connection. Despite knowing that El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison was a notorious blacksite, from which no detainee had ever left alive, the Defendants went to great lengths to transport Plaintiffs and Class Members there, in concert with the U.S. government, in flagrant violation of U.S. and international law. At CECOT, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, physically and psychologically tortured, forced to survive in punitive conditions, and held incommunicado for over four months. The Defendants and the Administration carried out this scheme in the face of ongoing judicial proceedings and court orders in this District, evading judicial review that would have prevented the scheme from being effectuated. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek compensatory and punitive damages for their rendition to CECOT, carried out by the Defendants in clear violation of domestic and international law, including the prohibitions against refoulement, torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Plaintiff and Class Representative Andry Omar Blanco Bonilla, a native of Venezuela, was forcibly rendered to CECOT on March 15 or 16, 2025, by or with the substantial and knowing assistance of Defendants, co-conspirators with the Administration. CSI is an aviation services company that provides and brokers air charter services as a prime contractor for ICE. CSI is incorporated in Texas, with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After its 2024 five-year prime contract award with ICE was held up in administrative challenges, CSI was awarded an interim ICE contract, without a competitive bidding process, to "provide charter flights to facilitate ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations of illegal aliens." CSI, as the primary contractor, is responsible for the performance of its partners and subcontractors. At all relevant times, GlobalX acted as an agent for CSI.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Van Houten Harper, Esq. Michael Hausfeld, Esq. Amanda Lee Das-Gupta, Esq. Claire A. Rosset, Esq. Percy Metcalfe, Esq. Katie Beran, Esq. James Gotz, Esq. Ida Abhari, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mvanhouten@hausfeld.com mhausfeld@hausfeld.com alee@hausfeld.com crosset@hausfeld.com pmetcalfe@hausfeld.com kberan@hausfeld.com jgotz@hausfeld.com iabhari@hausfeld.com - and - Michael Dell Angelo, Esq. Michaela Wallin, Esq. Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com mhussain@bergermontague.com - and - Times Wang, Esq. Adam H. Farra, Esq. Colin Gillespie, Esq. FARRA & WANG PLLC 1543 Champa St., Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (202) 505-6227 E-mail: twang@farrawang.com afarra@farrawang.com cgillespie@farrawang.com - and - Anthony Enriquez, Esq. Sarah T. Gillman, Esq. ROBERT & ETHEL KENNEDY HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (917) 284-6355 E-mail: enriquez@kennedyhumanrights.org gillman@kennedyhumanrights.org - and - Sarah E. Decker, Esq. ROBERT & ETHEL KENNEDY HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER 1300 19th Street NW, Suite 750 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 559-4432 E-mail: decker@kennedyhumanrights.org CUSTOM BUILDING: Class Cert Filing in Cazares Due March 1, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANA MARTINEZ CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "Aggrieved Employee" on behalf of other "Aggrieved Employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-10422-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order granting the joint stipulation to modify scheduling and case management order re: class actions and representative actions. The Court orders as follows: Event Date Fact discovery deadline: Nov. 16, 2026 Expert discovery deadline: Jan. 28, 2027 Motion for class certification deadline: Mar. 1, 2027 Custom manufactures building products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YoaoxK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Drew M. Tate, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com dtate@fisherphillips.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Class Cert. Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY ALLMAN, et al., v. DALLAS COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02709-K-BT (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (i) denying the Plaintiffs' request for class certification pursuant to Rule 23; and (ii) denying the collective proposed by the Plaintiffs. If the Court opts to narrow the proposed collective, the Defendants submit it should be restricted to (a) DCSO employees who worked for Dallas County in the three years before the Court signs the certification order and (b) accrued more than 480 hours for law enforcement or 240 hours for non-law enforcement of FLSA Time during the same three-year period. If the Court approves a collective, the Defendants request 14 days after approval to confer with the Plaintiffs on the form of the notice with seven days after the meeting to report back to the Court. The Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that their experiences related to OC Time (or any other issue) are similarly-situated to employees in the Audit Department, Clerk's Office, or any other Dallas County Department. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not established that their claims are typical of claims in unrelated departments. Certification should be denied. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that the additional requirements under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) are met, the Defendants contend. The Plaintiffs' lack of evidence regarding non-DCSO employees is not an accident. The Plaintiffs limited discovery to DCSO employees. The discovery requests defined "Putative Collective Action Members" as "all non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant who worked for the Defendant at the DCSO at any time between Oct. 3, 2022, and Mar. 9, 2026." In short, the Plaintiffs failed to carry their evidentiary burden to show that all Dallas County non-exempt employees are similarly situated, the Defendants add. Dallas is the second most populous county in Texas, accountable to two million residents spread over 30 municipalities A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6zmAOb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jason G. Schuette, Esq. Barbara Nicholas, Esq. DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION Dallas County Records Building 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-6068 E-mail: jason.schuette@dallascounty.org barbara.nicholas@dallascounty.org - and - Mike Birrer, Esq. Jordan Brownlow Perry, Esq. CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 855-3140 E-mail: mbirrer@ccsb.com jperry@ccsb.com DAVITA INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Meal Break Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James Bowling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DaVita, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-cv-03033-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), Judge Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted DaVita's motion to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA collective, dismissing the claims of approximately 1,300 opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice while Bowling's individual claim proceeded. Bowling alleged that DaVita automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' six-hour shifts for unpaid meal breaks even though DaVita required and expected employees to work during those breaks, depriving nurses and technicians of overtime pay under the FLSA. The court conditionally certified a collective of hourly nurses and technicians across nine states in 2023. After two phases of discovery, DaVita moved to decertify. The court applied the Tenth Circuit's three-factor test from Thiessen v. General Electric Capital Corp., examining disparate factual and employment settings, individualized defenses, and fairness and procedural considerations. On the first factor, the court found the roughly 1,300 opt-ins worked under 820 different supervisors at 1,459 locations, including clinics, hospitals, home programs, and skilled nursing facilities. Testimony showed no uniform practice governing how meal breaks were scheduled or interrupted. Some employees had breaks scheduled in advance, others day by day; some decided their own break times while others had breaks set by charge nurses or relieving staff. Reported interruption rates ranged from rare to constant, and practices for correcting timesheets after interrupted breaks varied as well. The court concluded Plaintiff had not shown a uniform companywide policy and that resolving each opt-in's claim would require an individualized, fact-specific inquiry. On the second factor, the court identified two individualized defenses: whether each opt-in would have actually worked overtime had additional breaks been paid, and whether DaVita had actual or constructive knowledge of unpaid overtime for each individual, given that reporting practices to supervisors varied widely. On the third factor, the court found a collective trial would be unmanageable, noting Plaintiff offered no specific trial plan identifying representative testimony or explaining how such testimony would reflect the full range of opt-ins' experiences. The court weighed the cost savings of collective treatment against fairness and judicial efficiency concerns and found the balance tipped toward decertification given the scale of the collective. Having found all three factors favored decertification, the court granted DaVita's motion to Decertify Fair Labor Standards Act Conditional Collective . The court dismissed the opt-in plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and equitably tolled the statute of limitations on those claims for 60 days, allowing opt-ins to decide whether to refile individually. Bowling's individual FLSA claim remained pending. The court also denied as moot cross-motions to exclude the parties' respective experts, David Breshears and Elaine Reardon, since it decided decertification without relying on their opinions. The parties were ordered to jointly contact chambers by July 31, 2026, to schedule a conference on Phase III discovery. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlLfMM from PacerMonitor.com DENTAQUEST GROUP: Prakash Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- POOJA PRAKASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTAQUEST GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-13118-NMG (D. Mass., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach announced on June 1, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. DentaQuest Group, Inc. is a dental and vision care provider, with its principal place of business located in Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garret D. Lee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 155 Federal Street, Suite 1502 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 383-4906 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 - and - Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: rmcgee@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Hardy Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Taylor Hardy, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02317, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 15, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61953 to the proceeding. The suit was previously removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the District Court for Eastern District of California on June 30, 2026. The Plaintiff pleads causes of action under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Privacy Rights Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. DermCare Management, LLC provides dermatology practice management services.[BN] Defendant DermCare Management, LLC is represented by: Erica Rutner, Esq. Dasha Sominskaia, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 388 Market Street, Ste. 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 644-0914 Facsimile: (415) 644-0978 Email: erutner@cozen.com dsominskaia@cozen.com DOLGENCORP LLC: Must Return Unlawfully Charged Tariffs, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KERRI MONTOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DOLGENCORP, LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL; and DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00977 (M.D. Tenn., July 15, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendants' retention of windfall profits generated as a consequence of the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, if the Defendants receive a refund for the IEEPA tariffs, the Defendants will have been provided a windfall as a result of already having charged consumers for the collection of unlawful IEEPA tariffs. Defendants' retention of money obtained from charging consumers for IEEPA tariffs offends public policy, is oppressive, and causes substantial injury to consumers by depriving them of the cost of the unlawful IEEPA tariffs. Once IEEPA tariff refunds, reliquidation, or other recovery became available, the Defendants' retention of tariff-related amounts paid by consumers became unfair, oppressive, and substantially injurious because Defendants retained the benefit of both the inflated prices they passed through to consumers and their corresponding right to tariff refunds, says the suit. Dolgencorp, LLC operates as a discount merchandiser. The Company offers food, snacks, health and beauty aids, cleaning supplies, basic apparel, house wares and seasonal items in neighborhood stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Silvey, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (865) 919-8839 Email: msilvey@brysonpllc.com - and - Myles McGuire, Esq. William Kingston, Esq. Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 893-7002 Fax: (312) 275-7895 Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com jdunklin@mcgpc.com DOT TRANSPORTATION: Joint Status Report Due August 10 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. DOT Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01303 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order deferring ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report by Aug. 10, 2026. On July 10, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to stay ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Notice of Settlement. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Dot is the transportation and logistics affiliate of Dot Foods, one of the largest food industry redistributors in North America.[CC] DYSON DIRECT: Ortiz Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- JOSE ORTIZ; and CHRISTINA NEDREBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DYSON DIRECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07052-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, when consumers visit Defendant's ecommerce website, www.dyson.com the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. The Defendant falsely told Website users that it respected their privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when users rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, Defendant ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Website users, says the suit. Dyson, Inc. manufactures vacuum cleaners and accessories. The Company offers upright canister vacuums, floor cleaners, floor cleaning tools, fans, heaters, purifiers, hair care products, and spare parts. Dyson serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com EARNEST LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elyse O'Callaghan Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EARNEST LLC, a Delaware limited liability Company, EARNEST OPERATIONS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and NAVIENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-18653-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02415. The Plaintiff alleges that Earnest's practice of transmitting commercial electronic mail messages with false or misleading subject lines violates the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and that such violations of CEMA, turn, constitute per se violations of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act (the "Washington CPA"). The Plaintiff's Complaint contains a single claim for violation of the Washington CPA, stemming from Plaintiff's alleged receipt of at least 11 emails and the alleged receipt of misleading emails by other putative class members.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Angelo J. Calfo, Esq. Gabe Reilly-Bates, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 1625 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-703-4810 Email: angelo@angelicalfo.com gabe@angelicalfo.com - and - Irina N. Kashcheyeva, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-234-7170 Email: ikashcheyeva@foley.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. Andrew C. Gresik, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 East Gilman Street, Suite 5000 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: 608.258.4216 [MDL] 608.258.4235 [ACG] Email: mleffel@foley.com agresik@foley.com ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Reato Case Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reato v. Electrolux Consumer Products Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02142-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Court entered an order referring Reato case to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned. An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j4CSMI at no extra charge. Electrolux is a global appliance company.[CC] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Nixon Suit Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIXON, et al., v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Van Tatenhove entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, and the Plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees to class counsel and for service awards to the class representatives are granted. 2. The Settlement Class, as defined in paragraph 8(b) of the Agreement, is finally certified for settlement purposes only. 3. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $825,000 ("Class Counsel Payment"). 4. As incentive award for participation as the class representative in the action, the Court awards $17,500 to each of the Plaintiffs. All of the UAW factors weigh in favor of approving this class action settlement. Accordingly, the Court grants the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. In addition, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that their efforts were instrumental in obtaining the relief for the class and accordingly will grant their request for a service award. Elevance provides medical, pharmacy, dental, vision, and behavioral health insurance and services. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFVzg7 at no extra charge.[CC] ELY LASSMAN: Standing Order Entered in Baney Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL B BARNEY, v. ELY LASSMAN, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01743-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered a standing order: The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5-3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re-filed in this Court, either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with L.R. 6-1. Counsel are directed to review thoroughly Rule 7.1 and to comply strictly with its instruction to file a compliant Disclosure Statement. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M6lI7P at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in Copeland Seek to Stay Fact Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to stay fact discovery pending the Court's resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' Rule 702 motions. The Parties agreed, subject to the Court's approval, that: 1. No depositions will take place and no new written discovery will be propounded between today and Sept. 25, 2026; 2. If the Court has not ruled on any of the Pending Motions by Sept. 25, 2026, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether a further stay and modification to the case schedule is warranted; 3. All case deadlines are extended by 120 days, as adjusted for federal holidays, as indicated in the modified schedule below: Deadline Proposed Discovery Stay lifted; Parties to Sept. 25, 2026 confer re whether further stay warranted: Close of fact discovery: Dec. 22, 2026 Expert reports on merits and damages under March 8, 2027 Rule 26(a)(2) for issues where that party bears the burden of proof: Close of expert discovery: July 1, 2027 Deadline for summary judgment/Daubert Sept. 2, 2027 motions: Summary judgment/Daubert motions hearing: March 2, 2028 Trial-setting conference: June 20, 2028 The Proposed Discovery Stay and schedule modifications would ensure the Parties do not waste resources pursuing discovery on any of Energizer's counterclaims that may be ultimately dismissed and would avoid burdening the Court with related potential discovery disputes. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vdHDS4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ashley.bauer@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in PPI Seek to Stay Fact Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to stay fact discovery pending the Court's resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' Rule 702 motions. The Parties agreed, subject to the Court's approval, that: 1. No depositions will take place and no new written discovery will be propounded between today and Sept. 25, 2026; 2. If the Court has not ruled on any of the Pending Motions by Sept. 25, 2026, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether a further stay and modification to the case schedule is warranted; 3. All case deadlines are extended by 120 days, as adjusted for federal holidays, as indicated in the modified schedule below: Deadline Proposed Discovery Stay lifted; Parties to Sept. 25, 2026 confer re whether further stay warranted: Close of fact discovery: Dec. 22, 2026 Expert reports on merits and damages under March 8, 2027 Rule 26(a)(2) for issues where that party bears the burden of proof: Close of expert discovery: July 1, 2027 Deadline for summary judgment/Daubert Sept. 2, 2027 motions: Summary judgment/Daubert motions hearing: March 2, 2028 Trial-setting conference: June 20, 2028 The Proposed Discovery Stay and schedule modifications would ensure the Parties do not waste resources pursuing discovery on any of Energizer's counterclaims that may be ultimately dismissed and would avoid burdening the Court with related potential discovery disputes. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vP7XUS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ashley.bauer@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Parties in Schuman Seek to Stay Fact Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN et al. v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; and WALMART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to stay fact discovery pending the Court's resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and the Defendants' Rule 702 motions. The Parties agreed, subject to the Court's approval, that: 1. No depositions will take place and no new written discovery will be propounded between today and Sept. 25, 2026; 2. If the Court has not ruled on any of the Pending Motions by Sept. 25, 2026, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether a further stay and modification to the case schedule is warranted; 3. All case deadlines are extended by 120 days, as adjusted for federal holidays, as indicated in the modified schedule below: Deadline Proposed Discovery Stay lifted; Parties to Sept. 25, 2026 confer re whether further stay warranted: Close of fact discovery: Dec. 22, 2026 Expert reports on merits and damages under March 8, 2027 Rule 26(a)(2) for issues where that party bears the burden of proof: Close of expert discovery: July 1, 2027 Deadline for summary judgment/Daubert Sept. 2, 2027 motions: Summary judgment/Daubert motions hearing: March 2, 2028 Trial-setting conference: June 20, 2028 The Proposed Discovery Stay and schedule modifications would ensure the Parties do not waste resources pursuing discovery on any of Energizer's counterclaims that may be ultimately dismissed and would avoid burdening the Court with related potential discovery disputes. Energizer is a manufacturer of primary batteries and portable lighting. A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QUHxSQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Jason H. Kim, Esq. J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com jmacdonald@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com - and - Kimberley C. Weber, Esq. MCCRACKEN STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY LLP 475 14th Street, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 597-7200 E-mail: sgs@msh.law kweber@msh.law The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ashley.bauer@lw.com ESTEE LAUDER: Pending Class Cert Bids Tossed w/ Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Subramanian entered an order denying without prejudice the pending motions to certify a class and to exclude expert opinions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 106 and 111. On May 13, 2026, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement. Estee is an American multinational cosmetics company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IhG29D at no extra charge.[CC] EVERBRIDGE INC: Filing for Initial OK of Settlement Due August 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sylebra Capital Partners Master Fund Ltd et al., v. Everbridge, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-02249-FWS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge . Slaughter entered an order granting the following both request: -- The Plaintiffs request "that the deadline to file the motion for preliminary approval be August 10, 2026. and -- The parties request that the court "stay all case deadlines set forth in the court's Order re Joint Stipulation to Modify Case Management Schedule." The Court orders that all pending proceedings in this case are vacated and taken off calendar. The court sets the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an appropriate motion for preliminary approval of settlement on or before Aug. 10, 2026. The court denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. Everbridge is a global enterprise software company specializing in Critical Event Management (CEM) and public warning systems. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XTHI2L at no extra charge.[CC] FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: D.C. Circuit Upholds $812M Jury Verdict ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld an $812 million jury verdict in favor of holders of preferred shares issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a written decision released on Fri., July 24, 2026. A copy of 40-page ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/2y7vo9q9 at no charge. On appeal, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the twins' regulator, argued shareholders' claim for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was unavailable as a matter of law, the shareholders failed to prove they were harmed by the Net Worth Sweep of all GSE profits in perpetuity, and certain shareholders lack standing to bring their claims. "Because these arguments lack merit," the appellate tribunal said, "we affirm the judgment of the district court." "We did not interpret section 4617(f) of the [Housing and Economic] Recovery Act to preclude 'judicial review through cognizable actions for damages like breach of contract'" in Collins v. Mnuchin, the Court continued, reiterating "the Companies' contractual obligations . . . remain in force." "FHFA asks us to reweigh the evidence and to discredit testimony heard by the jury. Because that exceeds the scope of our review," the Court said, "we reject the FHFA's arguments." Further, the Court made clear, the shareholders' covenant breach claims travel with the securities to the current holders of those preferred equity instruments. Shareholders cross-appealed, asserting Judge Lamberth in the District Court should have allowed them to seek restitution or reliance damages totaling $48 billion. The D.C. Circuit said Judge Lamberth's decision rejecting greater damage calculations was correct. FAT BRAIN TOYS: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Sheffield, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FAT BRAIN TOYS, LLC, d/b/a FAT BRAIN TOYS, Case No. 26-2-09164-7 was removed from Superior Court for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02437. The Plaintiff alleges that Fat Brain Toys is "engaged in persistent marketing through mass email campaigns across the United States" and that the "sheer volume of email marketing that Fat Brain Toys engages in put it on notice that Washington residents would receive its emails." The Plaintiffs also allege that the putative class "minimally contains thousands of members."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rossi F. Maddalena, Esq. Philip R. Meade, Esq. MERRICK, HOFSTEDT & LINDSEY, P.S. 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 467-2646 Fax: (206) 467-2689 Email: rmaddalena@mhlseattle.com pmeade@mhlseattle.com - and - Jason McElroy, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 333-8800 Fax: (202) 337-6065 Email: jason.mcelroy@saul.com FIFTH THIRD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Howards Due March 15, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Barrett entered an order adopting the following amended case management schedule: Event Deadline File amended complaint: Aug. 7, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to serve Dec. 7, 2026 amended/supplemental class certification expert report: Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion March 15, 2027 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant's response May 3, 2027 to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in May 24, 2027 support of motion for class certification: The Defendant is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HG1bOL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. Kevin C. Hulick, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP 1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com khulick@spanglaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. G. Karl Fanter, Esq. Dante A. Marinucci, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP SunTrust Center, Suite 2300 200 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801-3432 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com kfanter@bakerlaw.com dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com - and - Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq. Jacob D. Mahle, Esq. Wesley R. Abrams, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, LLP 310 East Fourt Street, Suite 500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4000 E-mail: nlampley@vorys.com jdmahle@vorys.com wrabrams@vorys.com FIVE BELOW: Johns Sues Over Unfair Tariff-Related Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- TYASIA JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04954 (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2026) is a class action suit seeking to halt and remedy Defendant's retention of windfall proceeds tied to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economy Powers Act. According to the suit, the Defendant increased the prices charged to Plaintiff and Class Members to recoup costs and duties associated with tariffs imposed pursuant to the IEEPA during the Relevant Time Period to shift the tariff-related costs to Plaintiff and Class Members through higher transaction prices. Starting in February 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump Administration imposed baseline tariffs on imports and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection cease the collection of all IEEPA-based tariffs beginning on February 24, 2026. The Plaintiff is requiring Defendant to disgorge and return to Plaintiff and the Class all IEEPA-related costs embedded in elevated consumer prices with interest. Plaintiff Johns is a resident of Kings County, New York who shopped at and made purchases from Defendant Five Below during the Relevant Time Period. Defendant Five Below is a value retailer and importer incorporated in 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 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com FIVE STAR: Hudson Sues Over Unauthorized Consumer Credit Report --------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS HUDSON, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE STAR PIZZA CO, INC., Defendant, Case No 1:26-cv-02107 (W.D. Mich., July 17, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes, provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports and certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. Plaintiff Hudson is a resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan and the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Five Star Pizza is a food and beverage services company in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 111 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1700 - #218 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 Email: ilozo@sirillp.com FLOWERS FOODS: Tuennerman Sues Over Bakery Bags' "Recyclable" Label ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELYSE TUENNERMAN, JUSTIN ALICEA, BROOKE TRUDEAU, and JORDAN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, DAVE'S KILLER BREAD INC., and CANYON BAKEHOUSE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04862-MTL (D. Ariz., July 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of low-density polyethylene #4 plastic film ("4 LDPE") bread and bakery bags. According to the complaint, the Defendants market and label the bags as recyclable, even though the packaging is not recyclable in real-world conditions through ordinary curbside or municipal recycling systems. Had the Plaintiffs known the truth they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Flowers Foods, Inc. is a producer of packaged bakery foods, with its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia. Flowers Bakeries, LLC is a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., with its principal place of business in Thomasville, Georgia. Dave's Killer Bread Inc. is a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc., with its principal place of business in Milwaukie, Oregon. Canyon Bakehouse, LLC is a subsidiary of Flowers Foods, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max Federman, Esq. BRIAN TED JONES, PC 719 N. Shartel Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 843-9909 Email: max@federman@briantedjones.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Alex J. Ephraim, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 - and - Donald W. Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 Email: Don@donbivens.com FOLGERS COFFEE: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Florida Consumer Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No. 4:21-md-02984-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff will move for an order for class certification on behalf of herself and the proposed Florida Class of consumers pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint the law firms of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel. The briefing schedule and oral argument are as follows: Moving Papers: July 10, 2026 Opposition Papers: Sept. 8, 2026 Reply Papers: Nov. 6, 2026 Oral Argument: None set. Folgers retails packaged coffee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VTuRbh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim E. Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Lubna M. Faruqi, Esq. Timothy J. Peter, Esq. Nina M. Varindani, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: lfaruqi@faruqilaw.com tpeter@faruqilaw.com nvarindani@faruqilaw.com - and - Bonner C. Walsh, Esq. WALSH PLLC 1561 Long Haul Road Grangeville, ID 83530 Telephone: (541) 359-2827 Facsimile: (866) 503-8206 E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Filing in Charton Extended to Dec. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS CHARTON, v. FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS CORP., a Delaware corporation doing business in California, Case No. 2:25-cv-11738-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting third stipulation to extend time to file class certification motion as follows: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification is extended from Aug. 24, 2026 to Dec. 21, 2026. -- The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's contemplated motion for class certification is set for Feb. 19, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's opposition is set for March 19, 2027. The Defendant offers employee benefits consulting and brokerage, risk management and analysis services, and commercial and personal insurance brokerage. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b45vyj at no extra charge.[CC] FRONTIER AIRLINES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beach Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMAH BEACH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3159 (D. Colo., July 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating state law and harming an unknown number of its current and former employees by failing to adequately protect its employees' and customers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach. The complaint relates that Frontier accumulates highly private PII of its current and former employees and customers. In collecting and maintaining its employees' and customers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with state law and federal law. Significantly, Defendant was already on notice that its cybersecurity systems had significant deficiencies and was vulnerable to data breaches. On March 3, 2026, the cyberhacker "bobdahacker" released a report warning that Frontier's boarding pass was functioning as a 'skeleton key' to all of an individual's sensitive information, including their home address, email address, phone number, full date of birth, passport number, nationality, frontier loyalty membership information, financial information including credit and debit card information as well as full payment history, baggage tag number information, as well as whether the passenger was an adult or a child. Despite the infamous cybercriminal, Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters taking credit for the breach, Defendant did not begin formal notification of the Breach until July 14, 2026. Formal notification is still ongoing. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure of her PII, which violates her rights to privacy, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff is now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her PII being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties. This injury was worsened by Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff about the Data Breach in a timely fashion, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks compensatory damages for breach of implied contract, which includes the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs. Plaintiff Kimah Beach is a former employee of the Defendant. Defendant Frontier Airlines operates more than 100 A320 family aircraft and has the largest A320 neo fleet in the Americas, serving approximately 120 destinations in the U.S., Caribbean, Mexico and Central America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET P. CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Fuego Smoke & Vape, LLC et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-AGM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), or in the alternative, for certification of an issue class under rule 23(c)(4). The Plaintiff further moves for an order appointing Kathleen Dial as Class Representative and appointing Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff alleges that Galaxy Gas encourages the misuse of its nitrous oxide products by distributing them for sale through smoke shops that sell the nitrous oxide products to their patrons, knowing full well that the patrons are not purchasing the items for cooking, but rather for use as recreational drugs. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: "All individuals residing in the state of Florida who, on or after Feb. 6, 2021, purchased products manufactured by Galaxy Gas and containing nitrous oxide from smoke shops, meaning retailers whose main purpose is the sale of smoking and/or tobacco products, including, but not limited to, cigars, pipe tobacco, and smoking accessories for off-premises consumption at a retail establishment that either devotes a majority of its total floor area to smoking, drug, and/or tobacco paraphernalia, including electronic cigarettes, electronic vapor devices, and sales of nitrous oxide products." Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its agents, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, any of the Defendant's officers or directors, any successors, and any Judge who adjudicates this case, including their staff and immediate family. Fuego is a retail establishment located in Orlando, FL, specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MYTUaP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com GARFIELD BEACH: Removes Mendez Suit to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DUNNIA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; 1085 GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV18095) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07761 to the proceeding. Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. provide plumbing installation, repair, maintenance, and related services throughout the New York Metropolitan Area. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Richard A. Westmoreland, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213)612-2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com richard.westmoreland@morganlewis.com GEICO GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendant will move the Court for an order granting: GEICO's motion for leave to file a reply to its fourth notice of supplemental authority in support of opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel, and request for evidentiary hearing and allowing GEICO's reply to its fourth notice of supplemental authority in support of opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel, and request for evidentiary hearing to be filed on the docket. Geico operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kOtplU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Claire E. F. Grimes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: Dan.Goldfine@stinson.com Jamie.Halavais@stinson.com Claire.Grimes@stinson.com - and - Jennifer M. Schauerman, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 987-2800 Facsimile: (585) 445-2393 E-mail: JSchauerman@woodsoviatt.com GEICO: Cox Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Alta Fay Cox, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case No. CVCS26-0001436 was removed from the Superior Court of California, Sutter County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on July 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-01160. The Complaint alleges that the amount in controversy—statutory damages for each alleged violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (seeking $5,000 per CIPA violation and $10,000 per violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura D. Smolowe, Esq. Christopher C. Barwick, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-1000 - and - Anthony T. Pierce, Esq. Caroline L. Wolverton, Esq. David Korin, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP Robert S. Strauss Tower 2001 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 887-4000 - and - Natasha Kohne, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 765-9500 Fax: (415) 765-9501 Email: nkohne@akingump.com GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks Leave to File Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES W. DAWSON, Jr., and EDMOND C. HILL, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-02412-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a reply brief to the Defendant's response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A reply brief will benefit the Court's resolution of the pending motion for class certification as the Defendant's Response inaccurately asserts that the Plaintiffs have stated falsehoods in their motion for class certification. The Defendant also alleges that the Plaintiffs' entire damages consist of false statements. The Plaintiffs should be allowed to reply to rebut these inaccurate assertions by the Defendant, the suit contends. Further, a reply is appropriate here so that the Plaintiffs can rebut certain inapplicable cases that the Defendant relied on for their Response, particularly as to damages, so that the Court can have a clear perspective as to the Plaintiffs' damages position, the suit adds. On Oct. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this products liability action against the Defendants, alleging the Plaintiffs suffered damages when they purchased defective home standby generators designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by the Defendants. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of generators. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=igHubD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reginald J. Clyne, Esq. Kimare S. Dyer, Esq. Eddie L. Holiday III, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. 9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-1101 Facsimile: (305) 670-1161 E-mail: reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com kimare.dyer@qpwblaw.com eddie.holiday@qpwblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Janelly Crespo, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Matthew Goldberg, Esq. Timothy Pfenninger, Esq. Joseph Baker, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8504 E-mail: janelly.crespo@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com matthew.goldberg@us.dlapiper.com timothy.pfenninger@us.dlapiper.com joseph.baker@us.dlapiper.com GRACO CHILDREN'S: Perica Sues Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- KELSEY PERICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC. and NEWELL BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03758-SDG (N.D. Ga., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendants' retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendants' systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to their own customers, including the Plaintiff. On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the IEEPA and other statutes cited in the Tariff Executive Orders do not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Defendants have sought a refund of the tariffs they paid pursuant to the Tariff Executive Orders through a complaint filed in the United States Court of International Trade. Despite having sought tariff refunds for themselves in the Court of International Trade, the Defendants have made no commitment to return any portion of their anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately bore the costs of such tariffs through elevated prices, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Graco Children's Products, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Newell Brands, Inc. based in Atlanta, Georgia. Newell Brands, Inc. is an American conglomerate of consumer and commercial products based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com GREENSKY INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Class Definition OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion and amending the certified class to include: "All persons who secured in California, between Jan. 9, 2016 and Jan. 2, 2025, a GreenSky Consumer Program loan for which the loan principal amount was $500 or higher and the associated transaction fee was at greater than 2% of the loan principal Amount." The Plaintiffs' proposed amended class definition appropriately accounts for newly produced evidence and satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and GreenSky has not shown any resulting prejudice, the Court says. The Plaintiffs allege GreenSky charges fees in violation of California consumer protection statutes. On Jan. 2, 2025, the Court certified a class of: "All persons who secured in California, between Jan. 9, 2016 and Jan. 2, 2025, a GreenSky Consumer Program loan for which the loan principal amount was $500 or higher and the associated transaction fee was at least 1% of the loan principal amount." GreenSky is a financial technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vKj3O8 at no extra charge.[CC] HALFDAY TONICS: Faces Kluge Suit Over Beverages' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KLUGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALFDAY TONICS INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03063 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from false advertising of the Defendant's ready-to-drink prebiotic iced tea beverages. According to the complaint, Halfday Tonics claims that the beverages contain 3 to 5 grams of sugar per can but independent laboratory testing shows that the products 9.69 grams of sugar per can, more than three times the amount of sugar claimed by the Defendant. Plaintiff Kluge is a resident of New York who purchased a Halfday Prebiotic Iced Tea variety pack including Halfday Raspberry Iced Tea believing that the products are low-sugar beverages. Halfday Tonics is a Delaware corporation engaged in the marketing, distributing, and selling of iced tea products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com HEART OF AMERICA EYE CARE: Yohn Suit Removed to D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Douglas Yohn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heart of America Eye Care, P.A., Case No. JO-2026-CV-001497 was removed from the Johnson County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on July 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02399-AWM-JBW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Heart of America Eye Care -- https://heartofamericaeyecare.com/ -- provides comprehensive ophthalmologist services, including eye exams, diabetic eye care, and treatment for various eye conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David R. Buchanan, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, PC - KC 700 W. 47th Street, Suite 420 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 472-0800 Fax: (816) 421-1183 Email: dbuchanan@bjpc.com - and - Steven H. Schwartz, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, PC - ST. LOUIS 800 Market, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63101-2501 Phone: (314) 242-5280 Fax: (314) 421-3128 Email: sschwartz@bjpc.com HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Myking Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amber Myking, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., Case No. 26-2-18584-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02421. The Plaintiff alleges that Hobby Lobby violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and asserts a derivative claim under Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Hobby Lobby sent commercial emails to Washington residents containing "false or misleading information in the subject line" concerning the duration or availability of promotional offers, in violation of RCW.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam C. Doupe, Esq. Artin Betpera, Esq. BUCHALTER LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.319.7052 Email: adoupe@buchalter.com abetpera@buchalter.com HP INC: Hillaire Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Justin Hillaire, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HP INC., Case No. 26-2-18861-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02438. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "all Washington residents who received promotional emails from Defendant with subject lines advertising sales or discounts on HP Products, during the applicable statute of limitations."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-3311 Email: choelsy@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Fax: (310) 656-7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Quincy Rush, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com quincyrush@dwt.com HUSSMANN CORP: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of TOMAS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUSSMANN CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVRS2604112) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 15, 2026. The Clerk of the Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03947 to the proceeding. Hussmann International, Inc. manufactures, sells, and installs refrigeration systems. The Company offers products such as refrigerated display merchandisers, beverage coolers, air handlers, evaporative condensers, heat exchange coils, and walk-in storage freezers. Hussmann International serves customers worldwide. [BN} The Defendant is represented by: Delia A. Isvoranu, Esq. Burke E. Wynne, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3000 Facsimile: (415) 957-3001 Email: DIsvoranu@duanemorris.com BWynne@duanemorris.com ILLINOIS: Adams Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Adams, individually and on behalf of a class, v. Latoya Hughes, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:25-cv-03098-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class for: "All individuals assigned to the Graham Reception and Classification Center from Oct. 11, 2022 to the date of entry of judgment who have been issued a medical permit for a wheelchair, cane, crutch, or walker to resolve the Rule 23(c)(4) issue of whether the common area toilets and showers complied with the structural standards required by the ADA and/or Rehabilitation Act at that time." The Plaintiff asserts that none of the common area showers and toilets meet mandatory minimum standards and that the noncompliance renders the showers and toilets dangerous and unsafe for mobility impaired individuals. The Plaintiff Adams was born in 1958 and has experienced significant mobility impairments since approximately 1995, when he was involved in an accident. Mr. Adams was processed into the Graham R & C on July 21, 2022, where he remained until his transfer to Big Muddy River Correctional Center on Oct. 22, 2022. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7IhYsD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq. Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq. THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD. 10257 S. Western Ave. Chicago, IL 60643 Telephone: (773) 233-7901 E-mail: pwm@morrisseylawchicago.com IN THINGS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IN THINGS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08000 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.saachistyle.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. In Things Corp. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS: Laird Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jan Laird, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 26-cv-005277 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Ohio on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00673-DRC. On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jenna Schneider, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 329-4478 Email: jschneider@wtlaw.com - and - Nathaniel Haas, Esq. Daniel Contreras, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 526-1880 Email: nhaas@wtlaw.com dcontreras@wtlaw.com INNS MANAGEMENT: Rangel Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Licensed Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEANNE RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE INNS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00812-MHW-SCS (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a licensed practical nurse at Whitewood Village in North Canton, Ohio from approximately 2011 to March 2025. The Inns Management Group, Inc. is an owner and operator of assisted living communities, with its principal place of business in Newark, 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 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com INVITAE CORP: B.W. Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as B.W., a Minor, through his Guardian, JULIE WIESS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. INVITAE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-08376 (N.D. Ill., Filed Feb. 13, 2024) was removed the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 15, 2026. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08376 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges Invitae's violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act on behalf of himself and a putative class. The complaint arises out of Invitae's chapter 11 case before the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all Illinois residents whose genetic information was disclosed and/or released by Invitae to Labcorp" pursuant to the Chapter 11 asset sale. Invitae is a biotechnology company that was created as a subsidiary of Genomic Health in 2010 and then spun-off in 2012.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 E-mail: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Martin L. Roth, Esq. Alyssa C. Kalisky, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: martin.roth@kirkland.com alyssa.kalisky@kirkland.com -and- - and - Jeffrey Ross Goldfine, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: jeffrey.goldfine@kirkland.com IRHYTHM TECH: Class Settlement in Glazing Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS UNION LOCAL #27 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement as follows: 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class: "all persons and entities who purchased or acquired iRhythm common stock during the period from July 25, 2022 through Aug. 9, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby." 2. The Court preliminarily appoints Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. 4. The Court approves the appointment of Huntington National Bank as the Escrow Agent to manage the Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class. 5. The Court approves and appoints Strategic Claims Services as the Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure and the processing of claims, and approves the payment of reasonable administration costs to the Settlement Administrator from the proceeds of the Settlement, not to exceed $225,000 without further Court order prior to the Effective Date 6. The Plaintiff shall file their Motion for Final Approval by Oct. 22, 2026. 7. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on Nov. 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom video. This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 114, 121, 128, 130, 132, 138, 139, 146, 147. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay $45,000,000 ("Settlement Fund"). The Plaintiff brings this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") putative class action against iRhythm Technologies ("iRhythm") and its CEO, Quentin Blackford, for allegedly false or misleading statements regarding iRhythm’s Zio AT, a device which transmits heart event data for physician monitoring. iRhythm is a digital healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DAYY1p at no extra charge.[CC] ITS TECHNOLOGIES: McGivney Sues Over Biometric Data Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE MCGIVNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ITS TECHNOLOGIES & LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000924 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by collecting and storing its employees' biometrics without providing any policy establishing either a retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric data. Moreover, the Defendant obtained the biometric identifiers without making the required disclosures and receiving a written release from its employees and also allowed other employees and third-parties access to the print database and servers and disseminated the biometric information by transmitting it both internally and externally, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says the suit. ITS Technologies & Logistics, LLC is a provider of intermodal rail terminal services, located in Westmont, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Drew, Esq. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC 20 N. Clark Street #3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (773) 505-2410 Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com - and - Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 265-3227 Email: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com JANI-KING INT'L: Cossette Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cossette v. Jani-King International Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order amending the class certification scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve Sept. 11, 2026 class certification: Class certification discovery closes: Dec. 15, 2026 Deadline for the Defendant to serve Jan. 4, 2027 opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve Jan. 29, 2027 reply to class certification: Class certification briefing submission Feb. 13, 2027 Date: Good cause exists to amend the Class Certification Scheduling Order to facilitate administration of the case and conserve the Court's and the parties' resources. Amending the case schedule is in the interests of justice and efficiency. Jani-King is an American chain of commercial cleaning services franchises. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l7HKm4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com JANIE AND JACK: Gautam Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Divya Gautam, Laura Herrera, and Xenia Habekoss, individually and on behalf of all others and similarly situated v. JANIE AND JACK, LLC, Case No. 26-2-18595-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02428. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts two causes of action against Janie and Jack, LLC: violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"); and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), predicated in part on the theory that a violation of CEMA constitutes a per se violation of the CPA under RCW 19.190.030. The Plaintiffs allege that Janie and Jack initiated the transmission of commercial email messages to Washington residents that contained false or misleading information in the subject line concerning purported discounts and time-limited sales.[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY, P.C. 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: Anderson@emeryreddy.com Brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Amanda Beane, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BEANE, P.C. 7724 35th Ave NE, P.O. Box 15526 Seattle, WA 98125 Phone: 206-531-0224 Email: amanda@amandabeanelaw.com - and - Elizabeth E. Schlissel, Esq. Daniel J. Gershman, Esq. Christopher A. Williams, Esq. FALCON RAPPAPORT & BERKMAN LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1415 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (516)-599-0888 Email: ESchlissel@frblaw.com DGershman@frblaw.com Cwilliams@frblaw.com JB HUNT: Class Certification Bid in Watson Suit Due June 24, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05359-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule The Plaintiff's motion for class June 24, 2027 certification due: The Defendants' response to the July 22, 2027 Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply due: Aug. 5, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification: TBD Class notice and opt-out period, expert TBD after ruling disclosures, fact discovery, dispositive on class certification motions, pre-trial and trial deadlines: J.B. Hunt is an American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=46EO9r at no extra charge.[CC] JULIAN ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortega Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MAGDALENA ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JULIAN ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND ENGINEERING, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08187(N.D. Ill., July 10, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices. Plaintiff Ortega was employed by the Defendant as a production employee. Julian Electrical Service and Engineering Inc manufactures engine electrical equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E Adams Street, #1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Email: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com KROGER CO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Reid Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CEDRIC REID and CARLOS DAVENPORT, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03959-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 15, 2026) is a collective and class action against the Defendant for its failure and refusal to pay employees all wages earned, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours each week. Kroger required them to report to work at its warehouses prior to the start of their shifts. For the Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members, they were required to report to work to pick up their vehicles and the items to be delivered to customers. Inside each vehicle was a computer screen that identified the routes that the Plaintiffs and FLSA Class Members were required to drive. These routes were established by Kroger in advance along with pre-set delivery times. Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members were required to make their deliveries on time and if they failed to do so, would be disciplined. Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes per shift worked for a purported meal break. The complaint alleges that the Defendant required Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours in a workweek but failed to pay them for all overtime wages due. Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of 40 in a workweek at no less than one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, it adds. The Defendant also required its non-exempt workers in Illinois to perform significant work without pay which violates the IMWL. Defendant's conduct also violates the law of Illinois because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff Davenport all earned wages as required by the IWPCA, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of this practice, the Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered loss of income and other damages to be determined at trial. As such, Plaintiffs and the class members to recover the underpayment, damages in the amount of five percent per month of the amount of the underpayment, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Cedric Reid worked as a delivery driver for Defendant in Atlanta, Georgia from July 2024 to February 2025. Plaintiff Carlos Davenport worked as a delivery driver for Defendant in Maywood, Illinois from July 2022 to January 2026. Defendant The Kroger Co. is an American multinational retailing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold J. Lizana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: 877-443-0999 E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com - and- Don J. Foty, Esq. Rammy Allouche, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com E-mail: rallouche@fotylawgroup.com LADIES TOUCH INC: Pedroso Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lais Pedroso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LADIES TOUCH INC., a California Nonprofit Corporation; LADIES TOUCH LLC, a California Limited Liability company; LADIES TOUCH VOLUNTEER PARTNERSHIP, a California Nonprofit Corporation; LEVY PREMIUM FOOD SERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois Limited Partnership; LEGENDS HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15534 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07469. The Plaintiff alleges wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and a "Class" of California individuals, which Plaintiff defines as a class of "all current or former non-exempt workers who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time commencing 4 years preceding the filing of the Complaint up until any Court proceeding certifying the Class and/or class action settlement."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com LAKE MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Underpays Employees, Hardy Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS HARDY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKE MERRITT HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC., a California limited liability company; RENEW HEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC., a California limited liability company; RENEW HEALTH GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2 6STCV21826 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices. The complaint relates that throughout the statutory period, Plaintiff and the Class worked more than 8 hours in a workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: (a) Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; (b) Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the regular rate of pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; (c) Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay at the employee's regular rate of pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; (d) Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; (e) Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; (f) Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked; and (g) Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. The Defendants were and are legally responsible for all of the unlawful conduct, policies, practices, acts and omissions. As a result of Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury and damage to their statutorily-protected rights. Specifically, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been injured by Defendants' intentional violation of California Labor Code because they were denied both their legal right to receive, and their protected interest in receiving, accurate, itemized wage statements under California Labor Code. As a result of this unlawful burden, Plaintiff and the Class were also injured as a result of having to bring this action to attempt to obtain correct wage information following Defendants' refusal to comply with many of the mandates of California's Labor Code and related laws and regulations, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants their actual damages caused by Defendants' failure to comply with California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to injunctive relief, as well as an award of attorney's fees and costs to ensure compliance with this section, pursuant to California Labor Code, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Alexis Hardy is a California resident that worked for Defendants in the State of California, as an hourly, non-exempt Licensed Vocational Nurse from approximately December 2024 to approximately August 2025. Defendants own/owned and operate/operated 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. Sean Hardy, Esq. Samira Carpenter, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 Facsimile: (213) 985-2155 E-mail: seuiig.yang@thesentinelfirm.com E-mail: tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com E-mail: sean.hardy@thesentinelfirm.com E-mail: samira.carpenter@thesentinelfirm.com LAN PRINTING: Shao Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Printshop Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- QINGHUA SHAO, a/k/a Jason Shao, and WEIJIAO HUANG, a/k/a Alison Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAN PRINTING COMPANY INC., d/b/a Lan Printing, LAN PRINTING 2026 LLC, d/b/a Lan Printing, ZHIWEI LAN, and QINGYUN ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00676-DPM (E.D. Ark., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants from on or about January 13, 2025 through on or about March 20, 2026. Lan Printing Company Inc., doing business as Lan Printing, is an operator of printshop in Little Rock, Arizona. Lan Printing 2026 LLC, doing business as Lan Printing, is an operator of printshop in Little Rock, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Email: tiffanytroy@troypllc.com troylaw@troypllc.com LCS COMMUNITY: Class Cert Bids in Wandrey Suit Due Sept. 6, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIERRA WANDREY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03430-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue pretrial schedule: Event Deadline Joint case management conference Feb. 24, 2027 statement: Non-expert discovery cutoff: March 1, 2027 Expert discovery cutoff: April 2, 2027 Motions for class certification/ Sept. 6, 2027 dispositive motions to be filed by: LCS is an employment agency based in Des Moines, Iowa. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5wqCj at no extra charge.[CC] LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL: McKoy Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Shaniece McKoy, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL CENTER, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV21545 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages damages as a result of the Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from November 2023 through July 2025 as an Administrative & School Support Coordinator. LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL CENTER, LLC was and is an employer who does business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. Shelby L. Miner, Esq. Philippe M.J. Gaudard, Esq. Joseph O. Marshall, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com sminer@blackstonepc.com pgaudard@blackstonepc.com jmarshall@blackstonepc.com LENS.COM INC: Franks Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREN FRANKS, et al., v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00724-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Local Rule IA 10-5, to enter an order granting them leave to file under seal the (1) Plaintiffs' omnibus motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support and (2) declaration of Caleb Liang in support of the Plaintiffs' omnibus motion for class certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court temporarily maintain the designated documents under seal pending the Defendant's submission of evidence demonstrating whether continued sealing is warranted under the applicable Ninth Circuit standard. Because the Defendant—not the Plaintiffs—asserts that the documents and testimony contain confidential commercial or proprietary information, the Defendant is in the best position to explain why the exhibits should remain under seal and to demonstrate that the applicable legal standard is satisfied, the suit says. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court permit the documents to remain temporarily under seal and direct the Defendant to file a declaration or other supporting memorandum establishing the factual and legal basis for maintaining the confidentiality of each document it seeks to seal. Lens.com is an online website that supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different brands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bSBWas at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: mrm@mazieslater.com - and - Craig Friedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ. 4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103 Las Vegas, NV 89121 Telephone: (702) 435-7968 E-mail: attcbf@cox.net - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GABER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Caleb H. Liang, Esq. LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-8900 E-mail: Caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 Telephone: (630) 797-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com - and - Allison Schmidt, Esq. 10777 W. Twain Ave., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 900-9040 E-mail: allison@nevadaslawyers.com - and - Carlin J. Philips, Esq. PHILLIPS & GARCIA, P.C. 13 Ventura Drive Dartmouth, MA 02747 Telephone: (508) 998-0800 E-mail: cphillips@phillipsgarcia.com - and - James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35295 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com LENS.COM INC: Franks Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREN FRANKS, et al., v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00724-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed California, Illinois, and Massachusetts classes and the nationwide breach-of-contract class (with subclasses and a Rule 23(c)(4) class in the alternative) under Rule 23(b)(3): The California Class (Nail) "All California residents and consumers who, during the Class Period, purchased products from Lens.com and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees" or "Processing""; The Illinois Class (Fitzpatrick) "All Illinois residents and consumers who, during the Class Period, purchased products from Lens.com and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees" or "Processing""; The Massachusetts Class (Gonneville) "All Massachusetts residents and consumers who, during the Class Period, purchased products from Lens.com and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees" or "Processing""; The Nationwide Breach-of-Contract Class (Gonneville and Martin) "All persons in the United States who, during the Class Period, purchased products from Lens.com and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees" or "Processing" not disclosed in Lens.com's Terms of Use — with state law contract subclasses and a Rule 23(c)(4) issues class in the alternative, as set out in Part VI"; Excluded from each Class are Lens.com and its officers, directors, and affiliates; the judicial officers presiding over this action and their staff; and Class counsel; -- appointing the named plaintiffs as class representatives; and -- appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The Defendant sells contact lenses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kC8p2T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-9898 E-mail: mrm@mazieslater.com - and - Craig Friedberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ. 4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103 Las Vegas, NV 89121 Telephone: (702) 435-7968 E-mail: attcbf@cox.net - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GABER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Caleb H. Liang, Esq. Kevin B. Kelly, Esq. LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612-8900 E-mail: Caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 Telephone: (630) 797-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com - and - Allison Schmidt, Esq. 10777 W. Twain Ave., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 900-9040 E-mail: allison@nevadaslawyers.com - and - Carlin J. Philips, Esq. PHILLIPS & GARCIA, P.C. 13 Ventura Drive Dartmouth, MA 02747 Telephone: (508) 998-0800 E-mail: cphillips@phillipsgarcia.com - and - James Matthew Stephens, Esq. Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35295 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com LIV GROUP INC: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mariah Meade, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE LIV GROUP, INC. d/b/a LIQUID I.V., Case No. 26-2-9143-4 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05756. In the State Action, Plaintiff alleges that Liquid I.V. violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), by sending commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines.[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Copenhaver, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 7100 Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312.258.5500 Fax: 312.258.5600 Email: steve.copenhaver@afslaw.com LLOYD'S LONDON: $3.57MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF PROPOSED PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, KNOWN AS LINCOLN ADVENTURES, LLC, ET AL. VS. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, ET AL., CASE NO. 2:08-CV00235-CCC-JSA (D.N.J.) (THE "LAWSUIT") THIS NOTICE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (THE "COURT") IF YOU PURCHASED INSURANCE THROUGH CERTAIN SYNDICATES AT LLOYD'S, LONDON DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1997, THROUGH APRIL 15, 2025, YOU COULD GET MONEY FROM A PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. This Notice is not an opinion by the Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses in this class action lawsuit. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR TOLL-FREE AT 1-877-298-4134 OR VISIT THE WEBSITE DEDICATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AT WWW.SYNDICATESETTLEMENT.COM. Whom does the Settlement affect? The Settlement affects members of the Settlement Class, hereafter referred to as the "Class" or "Class Members." The Class is, with certain limited exceptions, all persons and entities in the United States (including its territories) who, during the period January 1, 1997, through April 15, 2025, purchased or renewed a Contract of Insurance with any Lloyd's Syndicates named as a Defendant in the Lawsuit ("Defendants"). A Contract of Insurance is an insurance policy, not reinsurance. The Settling Defendants are those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London who are members of Syndicates 727, 2791, 1003, 2003, and 2020. What does the Settlement provide? The Settling Defendants have agreed to make a payment to settle the claims against them. The total amount of these payments is $3,570,000 (the "Settlement Amount"). After deduction of fees and expenses related to providing notice to the Class, taxes and tax expenses, and the award of Court-approved attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for counsel for the Class, the remaining money will be distributed to Class Members as provided in the Plan of Allocation. Who will receive a payment? Only Class Members who timely submit a Claim Form, which is attached to this Notice as Addendum B and available at www.SyndicateSettlement.com, and who are entitled to payment under the Plan of Allocation, will receive a payment. Payments will be calculated and made based on the premium paid for policies (from publicly available information and information provided by you in the Claim Form). If you are not sure whether you are a Class Member, you can get help at www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by calling toll-free at 1-877-298-4134. What are my legal rights? If you do not want to be bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself in writing from the Class. The deadline for submitting a request for exclusion is October 2, 2026. If you do not exclude yourself, but instead stay in the Class, you may object or comment on the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses by October 2, 2026. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses on October 23, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, in Courtroom 5B of the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, located at 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101. If the Court approves the Settlement: (1) the Settling Defendants will be dismissed from the Lawsuit; and (2) any Class Member that has not properly excluded herself, himself, or itself from the Class will be deemed to have released the Settling Defendants from all claims related to the Lawsuit and will not be able to sue the Settling Defendants for any of the conduct that was the subject of the Lawsuit. How do I make a claim? You may use the attached Claim Form or get one online at www.SyndicateSettlement.com. Once you complete the Claim Form, mail it to the Claims Administrator at Syndicate Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173075, Milwaukee, WI 53217, or submit it online at www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by email to info@SyndicateSettlement.com. The deadline to submit a Claim Form is October 30, 2026. It is your responsibility to provide truthful and accurate information, and to update any information, including contact and address information, to the Claims Administrator when appropriate. What must you do if you wish to object to the Settlement? If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you may object to the Settlement, any term of the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses. Your objection must be in writing and must provide evidence of your membership in the Class. Your written objection should also state the specific reason(s), if any, for the objection, including any legal support you wish to bring to the Court's attention and any evidence you wish to introduce in support of your objection. Your written objection (and any support for it) must be received by the Court (Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101) and by the following counsel no later than October 2, 2026 (or as the Court may otherwise direct): For Plaintiffs and the Class: Alexandra S. Bernay ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Robert S. Schachter ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 20283 State Road 7 Boca Raton, FL 33498 For the Settling Defendants: Thomas F. Bush Patrick Frye SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 155 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Wystan M. Ackerman Kevin P. Daly ROBINSON & COLE LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Where can I get more information about the Settlement? The website at www.SyndicateSettlement.com contains a copy of the settlement-related documents, including the Settlement Agreement and all of its attachments. You may also obtain information by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-877-298-4134, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time. You may examine the Settlement Agreement, the Court's orders, and the other papers filed in the case at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Room 4015, Newark, NJ 07101, during the business hours of the Court. LOAN STORE: Dukes Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Viridiana Dukes, an Arizona Resident, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN), a Delaware corporation; and The Loan Store, Inc., A Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-00291-AMM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") consisting of: "All employees who work[ed] for the Defendant The Loan Store AZ, Inc. (FN) and The Loan Store, Inc. and/or a related entity; within the last three years; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past or present account specialist, partner support specialist, funder, closer, doc drawer, mortgage broker, mortgage lender, assistant mortgage lender, dialer, pre-approval manager, loan processor, loan officer, loan officer assistant, loan consultant, insider sales representative (or similar job title and/or similar job duties and responsibilities) are known as (the "Collective Members")." These Collective Members were not paid overtime at the correct overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and/or worked off the clock hours that they did not receive overtime compensation for. This motion seeks permission to send the Collective Members notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), informing them of their right to join this case and allowing them to decide whether to seek their unpaid wages. Conditional certification of this lawsuit as a collective action and resulting notice to potential plaintiffs is essential because each day that notice does not go to potential plaintiffs, it potentially constitutes another day that has been lost under the FLSA's statute of limitations. The Plaintiff Dukes worked for the Defendants full-time from Aug. 12, 2024, to Feb. 6, 2026. Loan Store is a wholesale mortgage lender headquartered in Tucson, Arizona. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v0MIow at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com LORETTO REST: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cruz Extended to Sept. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz v. Loretto Rest Realty Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00613 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order as follows: The deadline for filing of Class Certification Motion is extended to Sept. 15, 2026. All other deadlines as set forth in Text Order remain in effect, in that: (1) Defendants Expert Disclosure is due by Aug. 17, 2026 (2) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure is due by Sept. 9, 2026 (3) All Discovery, including all depositions, shall be completed by Nov. 30, 2026 (4) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by 12/30/2026. The parties are directed to file next status reports by 8/17/2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Loretto provides healthcare space rental and dental, podiatry, and vision services through its clinic in Syracuse, New York.[CC] LOUIS VUITTON: Torres Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case DAVID TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01859, 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 13, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07126 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Wiretap Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California Unfair Competition, and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is an operator of retail boutiques across the United States, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Wesley Sze, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 310 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Email: wsze@gibsondunn.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Yu Sues Over Garden Tools' Defective Batteries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robby Yu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and GREENWORKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-07295 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2026) is a proposed class action arising from the Defendants' alleged defective battery design in certain Kobalt-branded garden tools. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable for their decision to use a dangerous design, their concealment of the known hazard associated with the defect, and their insufficient recall remedy. The complaint alleges that Defendants designed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Kobalt-branded 24V and 48V trimmers, blowers, mowers, chainsaws, and pruning saws equipped with defective lithium-ion batteries that can short-circuit when charged through the USB-C port while the batteries are inserted in the tools, posing a severe risk of fire and serious injury to consumers. On July 9, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall of approximately 554,780 Kobalt-branded garden tools sold at Lowe's retail stores nationwide and online at Lowes.com from January 2026 through May 2026. The recall fails to offer any monetary relief whatsoever to the Plaintiff and purchasers of the tools. Instead of providing a proper remedy, the Defendants merely instructed consumers to submit a request to arrange a battery replacement. Had the Plaintiff and Class Members known about the defect, they would not have purchased the tools, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers trusted that Defendants' tools were safe to use as intended but the recall proves they are not, says the suit. Lowe's Companies, Inc. is a home improvement and hardware retail chain in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Mason A Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Andreas Moffett, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 599-6072 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com amoffett@laukaitislaw.com LTIMINDTREE LTD: Pineda Files Writ of Mandamus Petition to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY PINEDA filed on July 9, 2026, a petition for writ of mandamus and-or prohibition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, under Case No. 26-4362, in connection with an Order in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Pineda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, Case No. 2:26-cv-01080-MCS-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. On Mar. 5, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On Mar. 16, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand case to Los Angeles Superior Court. On Apr. 2, 2026, Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand and granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in substantial part. The Court orders the parties to submit this action to arbitration within 30 days pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement. The case is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The Court directs the Clerk to remove the case from the Court's active caseload until further application by the parties or order of this Court. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner ANTHONY PINEDA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sara Maxine Banco, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Defendants-Real Parties in Interest LTIMINDTREE LIMITED, et al. are represented by: Michelle Marie LaMar, Esq. LOEB AND LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2000 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Brooks Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Timothy Brooks, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC. doing business as: RAY-BAN, Case No. 26-2-18682-1 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02429. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Washington citizens holding an email address to which Defendant sent or caused to be sent any email listed in the Complaint during the Class Period." The Plaintiff alleges at least eight emails between 2023 and 2026 contained "false or misleading" subject lines. The Plaintiff further alleges that "the Class is estimated to minimally contain thousands of members."[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Hannah E.M. Parman, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Nicholas Traver, WSBA # 60916 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Emails: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com hannahparman@dwt.com nicholastraver@dwt.com MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Palmer Suit to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jamien Palmer, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of Maryland, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00899-CDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit is brought against the Defendants for unconstitutional over detention, violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On May 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Charles D. Austin granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 31, 2026. On June 24, 2026, Judge Austin entered another Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Accordingly, the Court finds that all Rule 23(a)and 23(b)(3) conditions for class certification are met. The Court certifies a general class of all individuals detained at Central Booking for more than 2.5 hours after the Record Staff Approval Time following an order for their release. In addition, the Court will certify subclasses. The appellate case is styled as State of Maryland v. Jamien Palmer, Case No. 26-196, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMIEN PALMER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Esq. Kristen Marie Mack, Esq. HANSEL LAW, PC 2514 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 Telephone: (301) 461-1040 (828) 243-7949 Defendants-Petitioners STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. are represented by: Michael O'Connor Doyle, Esq. Veronica Natasha Love, Esq. Merrilyn Elise Ratliff, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6776 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: (410) 585-3070 - and - Laura Mullally, Esq. Anthony G. Brown, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (443) 204-0675 MASH VH: Soontrarom Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Technicians ----------------------------------------------------------- KATHY SOONTRAROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASH VH LP; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21309 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation, failure to permit rest periods or provide compensation, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, untimely final wages, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a technician from approximately 2005 through approximately February 2026. MASH VH LP is a limited partnership in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. Joana Fang, Esq. Jared C. Osborne, Esq. Kyle W. Wilson, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com jfang@blackstonepc.com josborne@blackstonepc.com kwilson@blackstonepc.com MCKINLEY PAPER: Class Certification Filing Extended to Sept. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ehmann v. McKinley Paper and Packaging Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01627 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than September 4, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation -- Employment Discrimination. McKinley is a vertically integrated, green paper and corrugated packaging manufacturer.[CC] MDL 3035: AMEC's Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order that AMEC Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Symetra's motion for partial summary judgment are granted in part, denied in part. The dispute between AMEC and Symetra largely turns on questions about Dr. Harris, his role in the administration of the Plan, and his authority (either actual or apparent) to direct Symetra to transfer Plan assets out of the Plan's Symetra annuity account. Genuine disputes of material fact on each of those questions and others remain for trial. Those genuine disputes mean neither side has shown why they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on some of the crossclaims between them. By the same token, the parties have shown an entitlement to summary disposition on other points. The Court concludes that no genuine dispute of material fact exists on the issue of whether AMEC was a fiduciary of the Plan. Therefore, Symetra's motion for partial summary judgment is granted on this point. In the final analysis, "the existence of apparent authority is a question of fact that should normally be left to the jury." That general rule holds in this case. Therefore, Symetra's motion for partial summary judgment is denied on the issue of whether Dr. Harris was a representative of AMEC and the Plan with the authority (actual or apparent) to direct Symetra. A reasonable jury could find in AMEC's favor on each issue and decide that Symetra gave substantial assistance to Dr. Harris's breach of fiduciary duty. That is enough to survive Symetra's request for judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Symetra's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied on AMEC's claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION (MDL 3035). AMEC is an unincorporated nonprofit religious association existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tJ4T9j at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3179: Plaintiffs' Bid for Curative Communication OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Albuquerque v. REV Group Inc et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01031 (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order that: 1. The Motion for curative communication to all solicited potential class members is granted. 2. A curative communication is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. 3. The Court approves the request of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class (DPPC) to disseminate a curative communication by email to all recipients who received the brochure on or before the date of this Order. 4. To facilitate dissemination of the curative communication, within 10 days of the date of this Order, Simonsen Sussman, LLP and Baron & Budd, P.C. shall produce to Interim CoLead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class a list of all municipalities, public entities, and/or any legal representative of such municipalities or public entities who were provided a copy of the brochure, regardless of whether receipt of delivery was acknowledged, and the contact information used to provide the brochure. 5. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, Simonsen Sussman, LLP and Baron & Budd, P.C. shall provide a certification to the Court that a copy of this Order has been provided to all individual plaintiffs, who have filed a complaint in any court that is or is anticipated to be part of this MDL. 6. This Order is stayed for a period of ten (10) days to allow any party to notify the Court of any objections to the content of the notice not heretofore considered. The Court finds that the brochure disseminated by Simonsen Sussman, LLP and Baron & Budd, P.C., and/or their agent(s), is incomplete and has the potential to mislead the recipients insofar as it fails to disclose information material to a potential plaintiff's decision to hire representation, including (1) the existence of a class action arising from similar facts and asserting the same or similar claims; (2) that counsel has been appointed for the class; and (3) that the Court has the ultimate authority under Rule 23 to oversee the proper conduct of the attorneys and the administration of the litigation. The case is consolidated in RE: FIRE APPARATUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL 3179). The Plaintiffs in all actions on the motion allege that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to increase the price of fire trucks principally by (1) restraining the production of fire trucks; and (2) exchanging competitively sensitive information. REV is an American manufacturer of ambulances, buses, commercial vehicle, firefighting vehicles, recreational vehicles and other specialty vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTJRrt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207)791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Danielle M. Weiss, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jbarrack@barrack.com dweiss@barrack.com sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com wban@barrack.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. Evelyn Riley, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2 CityPlace Drive Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com evelyn@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. David Seidel, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com dseidel@saverilawfirm.com MEGAN HOLDINGS: Mundy Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Wade Mundy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEGAN HOLDINGS LIMITED, DARREN HOO AKA HOO WEI SERN, NG KAI TIE, D. BORAL CAPITAL LLC, and WWC, P.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-05754 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Megan securities between September 26, 2025, and March 25, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the "Defendants", under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Further, this class action also asserts claims on behalf of all persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Megan securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") in connection with Megan's initial public offering ("IPO"), which occurred on or around September 26, 2025, pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). This case arises from the sudden collapse of Megan's stock price on March 26, 2026, due to a fraudulent market manipulation scheme that caused the Company's stock price to skyrocket more than 400% from $1.23 on February 25, 2026, to trade as high $5.18 per share intraday on March 25, 2026, despite no fundamental news to justify such a spike in the Company's stock price. Investigation and public reports have revealed that Megan was a vehicle utilized in a market manipulation and "pump-and-dump" promotional scheme. Impersonators acting as financial advisors touted Megan in online forums, chat groups, and social media posts with baseless claims to create a buying frenzy amongst retail investors. On March 26, 2026, the Company's market value collapsed 93.4% to close at $0.28 per share, down from $4.24 per share at close (and $5.18 per share at intraday high) on March 25, 2026 and the stock has not recovered and continues to trade well below $0.28. Throughout the Class Period, the Company, its executives and its auditor made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and the true nature of the trading activity in the securities. The Offering Documents contained material misstatements and omissions of fact. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: Megan was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; Megan's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; as a result, Megan securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by NASDAQ and severe volatility-induced decline; the sole underwriter on the IPO, DBC, had conducted numerous microcap IPOs that suffered volatility-induced declines resulting from market manipulation schemes; the Company suffered from material weaknesses in its internal accounting and financial reporting controls; and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Megan securities during the Class Period. Megan is a Cayman Islands incorporated holding company with principal executive offices in Malaysia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. Rourke Donahue, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Email: guiney@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com donahue@whafh.com META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Hearing in Gershzon Set for August 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00083-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Illston entered an order converting July 29, 2026 hearing into tutorial on technology, directing further briefing, and scheduling hearing on motion for class certification for Aug. 5, 2026 at 11 a.m. In the course of reviewing the parties' briefing on class certification, including the expert reports and motions to exclude the experts, the Court finds that it would be helpful to hold a tutorial on the technology at issue—how the Meta Pixels operated on the California DMV website during the relevant time period and what information was transmitted to Meta. The hearing scheduled for July 29, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. will be converted into a tutorial. Each party may have up to 1 hour for their presentation. The Court will hold the hearing on the motion for class certification and motions to exclude experts on August 5 at 11 a.m. The Court is aware of other consumer privacy cases involving the Meta Pixel filed in this District and that have been litigated through class certification. The Court directs the parties to file a joint chart no later than July 24 listing the N.D. Cal. cases; the class(es) sought to be certified; the classes certified, if any; and if certification was denied in whole or in part, the reason(s) for denial. Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ka325E at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Delgado Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04181-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying the current class certification briefing schedule, which the Court entered on June 10, 2026, in the interests of judicial economy given Meta's pending motion to certify the Court's summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal. The Parties agreed as follows, subject to the Court's approval: The current Class Certification Briefing and Class Certification Expert Disclosure deadlines are vacated. The Parties will submit a proposed schedule for same within 7 days of Court's order on motion for interlocutory appeal. Meta is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VKR7gj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com elise@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com - and - Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas C. Horscroft, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com thorscroft@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Michael Brandon, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Diana Feinstein, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com mbrandon@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com - and - Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn K. George, Esq. Robert C. Collins III, Esq. Sean Berkowitz, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 E-mail: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com robert.collins@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com MICHAEL CARVAJAL: Crespo Allowed to File SAC -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID CRESPO, ANTHONY PODIAS, PEDRO ESPADA, JR., ROLFI ESPINAL, KESNEL JUSTE, and ANTHONY JOSEPH, on their own behalf, and on behalf of two classes of similarly situated prisoners, v. MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Northeast Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06329-ERK-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Korman entered an order granting the motion to intervene and for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint. The second amended complaint shall be filed within 90 days of this Order. The court adopts the portion of the Report & Recommendation that addresses intervention. As the Report & Recommendation explains, the requirements for both intervention as of right and permissive intervention are satisfied. Accordingly, intervention is granted and subject matter jurisdiction over the injunctive relief claim is retained. The Amended Complaint is a putative class action alleging that class members were subject to deficient medical care, inhumane housing conditions, lack of fresh air and sunlight, and deficient food services, in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. The Defendants include HUGH HURWITZ, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; HERBITO TELLEZ, Warden, MDC Brooklyn; HERMAN QUAY III, Former Warden, MDC Brooklyn; KIMBERLY ASK-CARLSON, Former Warden, MDC Brooklyn; GERARD TRAVERS, Health Services Administrator, MDC Brooklyn; WAYNE DECKER, Former Food Service Administrator, MDC Brooklyn; and MARY LOU COMER, Food Service Administrator, MDC Brooklyn. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dW4cVG at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Hastings Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled TREVOR HASTINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 26-2-19546-3 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02537 to the proceeding. The suit arises from the Plaintiff's purchase of an Xbox console, a video game console manufactured by Microsoft, between February 2025 and February 2026 from a retailer, the time when the government invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. Plaintiff Hastings claims that Microsoft passed tariff-related costs through to consumers in the form of higher prices. Microsoft Corporation is an American corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7545 Email: emilyparsons@dwt.com - and - James Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com - and - Valerie L. Hletko, Esq. Laura Flahive Wu, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Email: vhletko@cov.com lflahivewu@cov.com MICROSOFT CORP: Qualtrics Seek to Seal Class Cert Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; QUALTRICS INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware Corporation; and QUALTRICS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Qualtrics ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal Qualtrics' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and supporting papers thereto. Qualtrics moves to file under seal portions of Qualtrics' Opposition, the declaration of Greg Burnham in support of the the Opposition, the declaration of Beth Rorick in support of the Opposition, the declaration of Samantha Alexandria-Booth Machock in support of the Opposition, and Exhibits B-C, G-I, N-W, Y and Z to the Machock Declaration (collectively "Designated Materials"). Qualtrics is also seeking to seal in its entirety Machock Exhibits B-C, G-I, Z and will file them provisionally under seal. Finally, Qualtrics is filing Machock Declaration Exhibits R-T and W—documents containing material that the Plaintiff has designated confidential—provisionally under seal so that the Plaintiff has the opportunity to identify and propose redactions in response to this Motion. Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZ9tza at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Watts, Esq. Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. Samantha Alexandria-Booth Machock, Esq. Caitlin McKelvie, Esq. Victor H. Jih, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com smachock@wsgr.com cmckelvie@wsgr.com vjih@wsgr.com MIDWEST LAND: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LELAND FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST LAND II LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00322 (N.D. Ind., July 12, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial establishment located at 103 Frontage Rd, Huntington, IN 46750 in Huntington County, which is a Wendy's fast food restaurant, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Midwest Holdings LLC provides construction services. The Company constructs steel buildings, wood frame buildings, concrete tilt up, residential buildings, and redi rock walls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com MINERAL MOON: Purscelley Sues Over Deceptive Renewal Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS PURSCELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINERAL MOON LLC d/b/a WWW.MINERALMOON.COM, Defendant, Case No. 268TCV22106 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 10, 2026) alleges violation of the California's Automatic Renewal Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated the ARL by failing to provide to consumers the post transaction acknowledgement as required. Defendant fails to "provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer." The Defendant's final checkout page presented to consumers violates the ARL. In particular, the Defendant's failed to describe the "cancellation policy that applies to the offer" via "clear and conspicuous" disclosures. The Website also failed to include the automatic renewal offer terms and continuous service offer terms in a "clear and conspicuous" manner, i.e., with "larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language," says the suit. Mineral Moon LLC d/b/a www.mineralmoon.com is a direct-to-consumer women's wellness and lifestyle brand. [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 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com MISSION PRODUCE: Kachuck Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- KACHUCK ENTERPRISES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Kachuck Enterprises, et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mission Produce, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01523-AH-AYP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged misleading online advertising about the sustainability and responsible sourcing of Mexican avocados in violation of California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law, and common law. On Jan. 28, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 25, 2026. On June 3, 2026, Judge Anne Hwang entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is styled as Kachuck Enterprises, et al. v. Mission Produce, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-4304, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 7, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 13, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on July 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on August 17, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on September 24, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on October 26, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KACHUCK ENTERPRISES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Defendants-Appellees MISSION PRODUCE, INC., et al. are represented by: Andrew James Soukup, Esq. Austin T. Riddick, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP One CityCenter 850, 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Mohammad Keshavarzi, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 48th Fl., 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - David Mitchell Poell, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 321 N. Clark Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60654 - and - Jenna A. Fasone, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 501 W. Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Samuel G. Brooks, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER, HAMPTON, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - and - Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON TAYLOR LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Daniel M. Blouin, Esq. WINSTON TAYLOR LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 MOCHI MEDICAL: Cioppettini Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Frank Cioppettini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MOCHI MEDICAL CA, P.C., a California Stock Corporation; MOCHI MEDICAL, P.A., a Florida Corporation; MOCHI HEALTH CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:26-cv-01260 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-02720-JDA to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MOCHI MEDICAL CA, P.C. -- https://joinmochi.com/ -- is a professional medical corporation affiliated with Mochi Health, an online telehealth platform specializing in obesity management, GLP-1 weight loss medications, and general wellness services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com The Defendants are represented by: Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Esq. Andrew Deddeh, Esq. Jesse Carter Ferrantella, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (858) 652-3100 Fax: (858) 652-3101 Email: tim.johnson@ogletree.com kristin.menchaca@ogletreedeakins.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com MONEYLION TECH: Yee Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL YEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01862 (Filed June 1, 2026) 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 July16, 2026. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07322 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts violations of (1) California Invasion of Privacy Act pursuant to Cal. Penal Code sections 630 et seq., (2) Federal Wiretap Act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq., (3) California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Section 502, (4) Invasion of Privacy pursuant to Cal. Const. Art. I, Section 1, and (5) California Unfair Competition Law pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. The Complaint alleges that when users visit Defendant's website, moneylion.com, the site automatically deploys third-party trackers from multiple alleged vendors. The Plaintiff further alleges that the collected data is then shared with third-party advertising networks for targeted advertising purposes. MoneyLion is a digital financial services and lifestyle content platform.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chloe Ann Lee, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPERLOCKELLP 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 622-2700 Facsimile: (949) 622-2739 E-mail: chloeann.lee@troutman.com MOUNT VERNON, ME: Legendre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN LEGENDRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF MOUNT VERNON, MAINE, Defendant, Case 1:26-cv-00371-LEW (D. Me., July 16, 2026) is a collective action complaint seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maine state law. According to the complaint, the Town has a common practice of paying its paid firefighters once every six months and the Plaintiff and other paid firefighters received no wages by the regular payday. The plaintiff was suspended when he complained about not being paid. Town of Mount Vernon operates the Mount Vernon Fire and Rescue Department and employs Plaintiff Legendre as a firefighter at an hourly rate exceeding $17 since 2022.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Schmid, Esq. Peter Mancuso, Esq. Borealis Law PLLC 97 India St. Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 619-0884 Email: andy@maineworkerjustice.com MOVADO GROUP: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Movado Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-08440 (N.D., Ill., June 16, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Mvmt.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Haspel's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MOVOTO INC: Kaznecki TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as David W. Kaznecki, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Movoto, Inc., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61898-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Movoto -- https://www.movoto.com/ -- helps homebuyers, sellers, and owners jump-start their real estate journey.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 218 Northwest 24th Street, Ste 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 498-3216 Email: mkeilson@wtlaw.com MR. CHOW ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marzillier Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELSY MARIBEL MARZILLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MR. CHOW ENTERPRISES, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV21784 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 10, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Marzillier was employed by the Defendants as a hostess and an event manager. Mr. Chow Enterprises, Ltd is a restaurant chain focusing on Beijing cuisine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Anthony Nguyen, Esq. Erik Dos Santos, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 320 N. Larchmont Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90004 Telephone: (310) 860-0770 Facsimile: (310) 860-0771 Email: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com EDossantos@shegerianlaw.com MSWF OHIO LLC: Villasenor Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSWF Ohio LLC. The case is styled as Sherry Villasenor, Eric Plenzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MSWF Ohio LLC doing business as: DRS Industrial, Case No. 3:26-cv-01567-JRK (N.D. Ohio., July 8, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee Benefits. MSWF Ohio LLC doing business as DRS Industrial Services -- https://drsmachine.com/ -- specialize in the repair, maintenance, sale, and purchase of advanced meat processing and packaging machinery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN-TAMPA 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 424-5683 Fax: (813) 329-6944 Email: sophia.walker@forthepeople.com MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Daniel, individually and as class representative, v. City of Myrtle Beach, SC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01231-SAC (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court, under Rules 6(b)(1), 16(b)(4), and 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.01 (D.S.C.), to enter an order granting their motion to stay the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification until after resolution of the City's motion for summary judgment. The City's summary judgment motion identifies four independent legal reasons why Daniel's claims fail. Requiring the parties to brief class certification while the City's dispositive motion remains pending would require substantial work and significant unnecessary cost to address Rule 23 issues that may never require decision. The City therefore requests that class certification briefing be stayed until after the Court rules on the City’s motion for summary judgment. If any claims remain after summary judgment, Daniel can file his motion to certify a class 30 days after entry of the Court's order. The requested relief will not affect any other existing deadline, as all Daubert motions, stipulations, mediation, and trial dates are to be set after the Court rules on class certification. Mr. Daniel filed this putative class action in South Carolina circuit court on Jan. 17, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to the City's use of a private contractor to enforce certain parking ordinances within a designated area of the City. The City timely removed the case to this Court on Feb. 27, 2025. City of Myrtle Beach is a residential and vacation community at the heart of South Carolina's Grand Strand coast. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n0M9DF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: R. Walker Humphrey, II, Esq. James T. Johnson, Esq. Mitchell Willoughby, Esq. Hunter R. Pope, Esq. WILLOUGHBY HUMPHREY & D'ANTONI, P.A. 133 River Landing Drive, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 619-4426 E-mail: whumphrey@whdlawyers.com jjohnson@whdlawyers.com mwilloughby@whdlawyers.com hpope@whdlawyers.com NARA ORGANICS: Sells Contaminated Infant Formula, Pragovich Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RILEY PRAGOVICH and JAYLENE ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NARA ORGANICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05778 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Nara Organic infant formula products. According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiffs, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products are contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, also known as infant botulism. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products. Nara Organics, Inc. is a manufacturer of infant formula products, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Russell M. Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 Email: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-3180 Email: nsuciu@brysconpllc.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Partially Allows Saylor Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Katherine Seaman, Mary Re Seaman, Sandra Tabar, Christina Bifulco, Francis Butry, and Cori Frauenhofer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-CV-1781 (PGG)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants' expert, Roger Rusty Saylor. Plaintiffs, holders of student loan debt sued in New York state court between 2013 and 2015, brought claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York state law against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, Trust 2007-3, Trust 2004-2, and Trust 2006-4 (the Trust Defendants), along with their servicing agent Transworld Systems Inc. and its predecessor NCO, and their New York counsel Forster and Garbus LLP. The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class on September 27, 2023, covering individuals sued by the Trust Defendants in New York collection actions between November 1, 2012 and February 27, 2018, where a default judgment was obtained. This action therefore proceeds as a certified class action, not a putative one. Plaintiffs alleged that the Trust Defendants filed thousands of sham lawsuits without the intent or ability to prove ownership of the underlying loans, relying on a byzantine securitization process that left them unable to establish chain of title. After class certification, the Court permitted the Trust Defendants to serve one merits-oriented expert report addressing the student loan securitization process. The Trust Defendants served the report of Roger Saylor, a former Managing Director at Citigroup's Education Finance group who had underwritten several of the securitizations at issue. Plaintiffs moved to exclude Saylor's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Court first rejected Plaintiffs' challenge to Saylor's qualifications, finding that his more than twenty years of industry experience, including work reviewing transaction documents and conducting due diligence reviews of loan servicers, qualified him to testify as an industry expert notwithstanding his lack of formal training or published scholarship. On the merits, the Court allowed Saylor to describe the general two-step securitization structure and to opine that the Trust Defendants' transactions generally followed that process, finding the testimony relevant and helpful to a jury unfamiliar with securitization mechanics. The Court barred Saylor from construing the meaning of the True Sale Opinions issued by counsel, holding that interpretation of legal documents is not a proper subject of expert testimony and that, in any event, what those opinions covered was irrelevant to whether Defendants could prove ownership of specific loans in state court. The Court also excluded Saylor's opinion connecting the First Marblehead-TERI Purchase Agreements to any particular loan's assignment to a particular Trust, concluding that the underlying documents did not support that inference and that Saylor was improperly functioning as a narrator of documents he did not negotiate or create. The Court permitted Saylor to describe PHEAA's general role as loan servicer and its practice of updating ownership records through a coding system called a Legend, and to describe the reconciliation period following a securitization's closing. However, the Court excluded Saylor's opinion that PHEAA's records were the "most reliable source of information," finding that opinion unsupported by any evidence that PHEAA in fact maintained its records consistently or accurately. Finally, the Court excluded nearly all of Saylor's opinions regarding what "industry participants" believed or understood about loan ownership, holding that testimony concerning the state of mind of parties and non-parties falls outside the bounds of permissible expert testimony and that such beliefs were not probative of whether the Trust Defendants themselves could reasonably have believed they could prove ownership of specific loans in state court. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Saylor's testimony as to the meaning of the True Sale Opinions, the connection between the Purchase Agreements and specific loan assignments, the reliability of PHEAA's records, and the beliefs of industry participants. The Court denied the motion as to Saylor's qualifications and his testimony describing the general securitization structure and PHEAA's servicing practices. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IMvVD5 from PacerMonitor.com NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order in Authors Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying their motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled The Authors Guild, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Endowment for the Humanities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3923, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants to challenge the mass termination of previously awarded grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants (i) engaged in arbitrary and capricious agency action by terminating grants en masse without individualized consideration; (ii) acted without statutory authorization and effectively displaced the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair and the grantmaking process Congress prescribed by effectuating terminations outside the statutory scheme set forth in 20 U.S.C. Sections 956(c), 957(f); and (iii) discriminated on the basis of viewpoint and protected characteristics by targeting projects associated with "diversity, equity, and inclusion," "gender ideology," and other subject matter that the Trump Administration regarded as inconsistent with its priorities. On Mar. 6, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 27, 2026, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that the mass termination is unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further declares that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires. The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is permanently enjoined from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the mass termination. This injunction applies to all termination notices issued as part of the mass termination, including all grants identified in the Plaintiffs' exhibit. The appellate case is styled as The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities, Case No. 26-1832, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees THE AUTHORS GUILD, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jamie Crooks, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street, NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Defendants-Appellants NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 Interested Parties-Appellees AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel F. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 5100 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20016 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying their motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled American Council of Learned Societies, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Endowment for the Humanities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-3657, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants to challenge the mass termination of previously awarded grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities ("NEH"). The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants (i) engaged in arbitrary and capricious agency action by terminating grants en masse without individualized consideration; (ii) acted without statutory authorization and effectively displaced the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair and the grantmaking process Congress prescribed by effectuating terminations outside the statutory scheme set forth in 20 U.S.C. Sections 956(c), 957(f); and (iii) discriminated on the basis of viewpoint and protected characteristics by targeting projects associated with "diversity, equity, and inclusion," "gender ideology," and other subject matter that the Trump Administration regarded as inconsistent with its priorities. On Mar. 6, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 27, 2026, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that the mass termination is unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further declares that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires. The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is permanently enjoined from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the mass termination. This injunction applies to all termination notices issued as part of the mass termination, including all grants identified in the Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, NEH_AR_0000136. The appellate case is styled as American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, Case No. 26-1829, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel F. Jacobson, Esq. John Robinson, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 5100 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20016 Defendants-Appellants NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 NATIONAL TRADE: Akselrod Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as GREG AKSELROD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL TRADE SUPPLY LLC D/B/A DISCOUNT FILTERS, Case No. 26-2-18752-5 SEA (Filed June 10, 2026) 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 Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02503 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act, Chapter 19.190.020 RCW, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86.020 RCW, by sending "false and misleading emails" with subject lines advertising time-limited discounts on filters that were not truly time-limited. National Trade is a family-owned e-commerce company specializing in air and water filtration products, founded in 2002 and headquartered in Greenwood, Indiana.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-2772 E-mail: brooksm@ballardspahr.com NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD: Crow Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cameron Crow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., NCL CORPORATION LTD., and NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD., Case No. 26-2-18823-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02436. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class consists of "at least thousands of members," and seeks "the greater of actual damages and statutory damages of $500 per email that violates CEMA" as well as "attorneys' fees and costs." The Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant has sent at least thousands of emails to Washington recipients" that allegedly violate Washington law and identifies at over 50 allegedly misleading emails sent by Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOSLEY PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503.241.3311 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: 310.656.7066 Email: jonas@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Austin Rainwater, Esq. Allyson R. Mancuso, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-7045 Phone: 206.505.4000 Email: Austin.rainwater@hklaw.com Allyson.mancuso@hklaw.com NEORA LLC: Lipton Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled BARBARA LIPTON, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved, v. NEORA, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01567484-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 17, 2026. The Clerk of the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01917 to the proceeding. The Complaint claims alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code and Civil Penalties Under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act for Civil Penalties Under California Labor Code and for misclassification of the Plaintiff and the putative class members as independent contractors instead of non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nora failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide rest and meal periods and timely wages during their employment and failed to keep adequate or accurate time records including wage statements and similar payroll documents and failed to reimburse business expenses. Neora, LLC is a global relationship marketing company offering age-defying skincare, hair care, and wellness products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq. Kathryn B. Fox, Esq. Tricia A. Pham, Esq. BUCHALTER LLP 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Telephone: (213) 891-0700 Facsimile: (213) 896-0400 Email: LSteinberg@buchalter.com kfox@buchalter.com tpham@buchalter.com NESPRESSO USA: Rolston Sues Over Improper Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE ROLSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-7547 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's practice of systematically requesting and recording consumers' personal identification information during ordinary in-store credit card transactions in California in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Nespresso USA, Inc. provides coffee machines and accessories. The Company offers cups, spoons, milk frothers, and cpasule dispensers. Nespresso USA operates worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Deborah De Villa, Esq. Yufei Wang, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com ywang@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com OOFOS INC: Sheffield Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Sheffield, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OOFOS, INC., Case No. 26-2-09131-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05758. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), Chapter 19.190 RCW, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Chapter 19.86 RCW, by sending emails "featuring subject lines which employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in consumers' minds."[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 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Cornelia P. Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.332.1380 Fax: 206.624.7317 Email: cbrandfieldharvey@bakerlaw.com - and - Lisa A. Houssiere, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main St #1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713.646.1318 Email: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com OTO DEVELOPMENT: Urrutia Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GLENDA URRUTIA, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26-CIV04721, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of the Northern District of California assigned Case 3:26-cv-07316 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges ten causes of action including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, meal break violations, and rest break violations. According to the suit, the Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the other Class Members with complete and accurate wage statements due to the violations. OTO Development is a Delaware limited liability company, with principal place of business in South Carolina. The Defendant is represented by: Daniel B. Chammas, Esq. Min K. Kim, Esq. FORD HARRISON LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: chammas@fordharrison.com mkim@fordharrison.com PACIFIC MARITIME: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Fowler Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Jeremy Fowler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00974-TL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, which 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, is brought against the Defendants for wage-and-hour law violations. On July 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Tana Lin granted on June 24, 2026. The Court has already dismissed the Defendants' arguments about standing and individualized calculations and again does so here, for the same reasons. Therefore, the Court finds that a Rule 23(b)(2) class may be certified for the purpose of seeking injunctive relief against Defendant Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The appellate case is styled as Jeremy Fowler v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al., Case No. 26-4355, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al. are represented by: Kent M. Roger, Esq. Taylor D. Horn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 - and - Clifford D. Sethness, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-6900 Facsimile: (213) 270-6901 - and - Thomas M. Peterson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 PENTAIR WATER POOL: Toledo Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Toledo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC., and DOES 1through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2026CUOE065677 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07450. The Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of individuals who are and were employed by Pentair as non-exempt or hourly-paid employees in California, including: failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2, 1197 and 1198; failure to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; failure to permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226; failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation from employment in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, & 210; interference with CFRA in violation of Government Code Section 12945.2, and unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura M. Booth, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 475-1500 Fax: (949) 475-0016 Email: lbooth@shb.com PINNACLE SERVICES: Hartman Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Hartman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated V. PINNACLE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:26-cv-03227-LMP-DJF (D. Minn., July 9, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act ("MPWA"), and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act ("MFLSA"). The Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals worked unpaid overtime hours because, in part, Defendant assigned unmanageable caseloads and set a billable unit requirement that frequently required more than forty hours of work per week and because Case Managers complained about the hours required to complete the work. The Defendant failed to keep accurate records of Plaintiff and other Case Managers' hours worked. As a result of Defendant's willful and illegal pay practices, Plaintiff and those similarly situated were deprived of compensation for their hours worked over 40 and 48 per workweek in violation of federal and Minnesota state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked out of Defendant's Minneapolis office, traveled throughout Dakota county and other Minneapolis counties for work, and also worked remotely from home. Pinnacle Services, Inc. is registered to do business in the State of Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reena I. Desai, Esq. Ricardo G. Perez, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: rdesai@nka.com rperez@nka.com PLANETART LLC: Russo Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Websites --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLANETART, LLC d/b/a CAFEPRESS.COM, CANVASWORLD.COM, and FREEPRINTSNOW.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05773 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's websites, www.cafepress.com, www.canvasworld.com, and www.freeprintsnow.com, contain access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. PlanetArt, LLC, doing business as cafepress.com, canvasworld.com, and freeprintsnow.com, is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PRINCESS CRUISE LINES: Martinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cassandra Martinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., Case No. 26-2-18699-5 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 10, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02433. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class defined as "Washington residents who received promotional emails from Princess advertising sales or discounts on Princess Products." The Complaint asserts causes of action against Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class for violating Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). As a result of these alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $500 per email that violates CEMA, actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-3311 Email: choesly@barfsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin Brenner, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656- 7069 Email: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley E.M. Gammell, Esq. Courtney A. Neufeld, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 288-0110 Email: Ashley.Gammell@arnoldporter.com Courtney.Neufeld@arnoldporter.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sneed Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNEED, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court will set a case management conference on July 31, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The statement shall propose new deadlines for class certification and any related deadlines. The Court finds that Defendant will suffer no significant prejudice if the motion to amend is granted. The Plaintiffs only seek to add a named plaintiff, not to add any new theories of liability or substantive facts that would change the course of this case. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against P&G for allegedly "falsely and misleadingly advertising, labeling, and packaging certain" of its ZzzQuil Nighttime Sleep Aid products as "Non-Habit Forming." Sneed alleges that the Products contain diphenhydramine, "an ingredient that can lead consumers to frequently use the Product over a prolonged period, contrary to the Challenged Representation disclaiming the Products' potential to be 'habit forming.'" The Defendant is a multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xlnDQF at no extra charge.[CC] PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Hancock Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey J. Hancock, on behalf of the Suntec Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Miguel Paredes; Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC; Derek F. Wright; Jerome P. Barnier, Jr.; Jeremiah Hood; Matthew Rogers; Jose L. Lopez; Jorge Martinez; and David Bradley, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04870-JJT (D. Ariz., July 10, 2026) arises under Title I of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to require Defendants to make good to the Plan losses resulting from their violations of the provisions of ERISA, to restore to the Plan any profits that have been made by breaching fiduciaries, parties in interest, or others through the receipt or use of Plan assets in violation of ERISA, and to obtain other appropriate equitable relief and legal remedies in order to redress violations and enforce the provisions of ERISA. This action is brought for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by the Trustee when it caused the Plan to engage in transactions in connection with its leveraged purchase of Suntec stock from the Seller Defendants and other selling shareholders, and other plan-wide relief. Specifically, the Trustee caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions under ERISA when it caused the Plan to purchase Company stock from the selling shareholders and transfer assets of the Plan to them, and financed that purchase with a loan from the Company. The Seller Defendants, as counterparties to the stock transaction, and as directors, officers, employees and shareholders of Suntec and Suntec Concrete, were knowing participants in the prohibited stock purchase transaction. The Board Defendants, therefore, breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, in connection with the prohibited transactions, says the complaint. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the Plan, Plaintiff, and all Plan participants have been injured and participants deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce his rights and the rights of the Class members under ERISA and the Plan. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks, in the alternative, to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their causing prohibited transactions and knowingly participating in the prohibited transactions, and from breaching their fiduciary duties, and equitable relief, including reformation of Transaction contracts, and removal of the Trustee as a fiduciary and enjoinment of it from acting as a fiduciary for any employee benefit plan that covers or includes any Suntec employees or members of the Class. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan arising from their ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to disgorge to the Plan any improper profits, that these prohibited transactions be declared void, and any monies recovered for the Plan to be allocated to the accounts of the Class members. Jeffrey J. Hancock is a participant in the Plan who was vested in shares of Suntec allocated to his account in the Plan. Suntec Holdings, Inc. was a closely held private company, the Plan's sponsor, and a party in interest to the Plan. Miguel Paredes and his operating company Prudent Fiduciary Services, LLC ("the Trustee") served as the fiduciary trustee for the Suntec Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan" or the "ESOP") at the time the Plan acquired shares of Suntec Holdings, Inc. ("Suntec" or the "Company"). Derek F. Wright, Jerome P. Barnier, Jr., Jeremiah Hood, Matthew Rogers, Jose L. Lopez, and Jorge Martinez (collectively, the "Seller Defendants") were members of the Board of Directors of Suntec and Suntec Concrete, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC Scottsdale Quarter 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Discloses Patients' Info to Google, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, and PINNACLE DERMATOLOGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-07901 (N.D. Ill., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, negligence, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of aiding, employing, agreeing, and conspiring with third parties, including Google, LLC, to intercept patients' communications as they seek dermatology services through the Defendants' website. According to the complaint, the Defendants secretly installed complex computer code on their website which serves to track and disclose their patients' activity, in real time, to Google. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the protected health information (PHI) of their patients is disclosed to Google without their consent. Qualderm Partners, LLC is a dermatology services provider, with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee. Pinnacle Dermatology Management, LLC is a dermatology services provider, with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com QUAY EYEWARE: Chavez-Lopez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlita Chavez-Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUAY EYEWARE, INC., Case No. 26-2-18561-1-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on July 9, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02408. The Plaintiff alleges that she received several emails from Quay containing false or misleading subject lines because the emails misrepresented the duration of Quay's sales and/or the discounts recipients would receive by making purchases during those sales. The The Plaintiff further alleges that Quay sends these emails to consumers it knows or has reason to know are Washington residents. By sending these emails, plaintiff claims that Quay's actions violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andy Crowder, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Phone: (612) 321-2800 Email: andy.crowder@nortonrosefulbright.com - and – Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq. Eva Yang, Esq. Nicole Zelada, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Email: Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com nicole.zelada@nortonrosefulbright.com RAPID FIRE: Rainey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unjust Enrichment --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX RAINEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAPID FIRE GEORGIA LLC D/B/A RAPID FIRE HOME BUYERS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00549 (M.D. Ala., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and quantum labor/unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a home buying specialist from July 16, 2024 until June 13, 2025. Rapid Fire Georgia LLC, doing business as Rapid Fire Home Buyers, is a real estate investment and home-buying company, headquartered in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen D. Arnold, Esq. Whitney Morgan Brown, Esq. ALLEN D. ARNOLD, Attorney at Law 6 Office Park Circle, Suite 209 Mountain Brook, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 252-1550 Email: ada@allenarnoldlaw.com whitney@allenarnoldlaw.com RAW SPORT: Ruchman Sues Over Protein Shakes' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RUCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAW SPORT SUPPLEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07341 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Raw Isolate Protein shakes. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and represents the products to contain 30 grams of protein per shake and good as meal replacement for consumption after a workout. In reality, the products contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the labels. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Raw Sport Supplement Company, LLC is a manufacturer of supplements, with its principal place of business in Port St. Lucie, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com RAYMOND JAMES: Expert Disclosure Deadline Extended to July 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diflumeri, et al., v. Raymond James Financial, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01899 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe entered an order granting Joint Motion to Modify Expert Disclosure Deadlines as follows: The Plaintiffs' deadline is extended up to and including July 31, 2026. The Defendant's deadline is extended up to and including August 28, 2026, and Plaintiffs' rebuttal deadline is extended up to and including September 28, 2026. No other deadlines in the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order are altered by this Order, nor may the parties rely upon this Order to support a request for an extension of any other deadline in this case. The Court also notes that the joint motion fails to include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(b). The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. The Defendant is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company.[CC] RESTAURANT DEPOT: Parties Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH AMERICAN OLIVE OIL ASSOCIATION, v. RESTAURANT DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04186-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Liman entered an order referring the parties to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for settlement. This order memorializes the rulings made at the initial pretrial conference on July 9, 2026. These two cases will not be consolidated but the parties in these two cases shall coordinate discovery so as to avoid unnecessary duplication. Requests for production of documents and interrogatories shall be made by Aug. 8, 2026. The close of fact discovery shall be Dec. 31, 2026. The deadline for expert discovery shall be March 9, 2027. In Case No. 26-cv-2853, the Plaintiff shall move for class certification by April 2, 2027. The March 9, 2027 deadline for expert discovery shall not apply to expert discovery regarding damages offered by an expert who is not an expert relied upon for class certification. The Court will hold a post-discovery status conference with the parties in each of the above captioned cases on April 13, 2027 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15C of the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse. At this conference, the parties in Case No. 26-cv-2853 shall be prepared to discuss a schedule for any expert discovery needed following a decision on the motion for class certification. The parties may apply for an adjustment to any of the dates set for good cause shown. Restaurant distributes a variety of food products. A copy of the Court's order dated July 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kjZigt at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKET MORTGAGE: Faces Rosado Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- NOVERTO ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-12419-SDK-APP (E.D. Mich., July 15, 2026) is an action seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's unlawful actions in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Between May and June of 2026, the Defendant sent Plaintiff at least 40 unsolicited and unconsented phone calls and text messages, promoting Defendant's mortgages which Plaintiff did not want or need. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by making telemarketing calls and failing to honor consumer requests not to receive calls from or on behalf of Defendant, and/or failing to record such requests. Even after Plaintiff clearly expressed his desire not to receive any more telephone calls from Defendant, it placed additional calls and texts to Plaintiff. As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff experienced frustration, annoyance, irritation and a sense that her privacy had been invaded by Defendant, the complaint asserts. Rocket Mortgage, LLC is an American mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (215) 540-8817 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com ROOT TECHNOLOGY: Zon Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case NICOLE ZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROOT TECHNOLOGY LTD. d/b/a MOMCOZY, Case No. 26-2-18867-0 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 13, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02457 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for sending promotional emails with misleading subject lines. Root Technology Ltd., doing business as Momcozy, is an e-commerce company based in Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com RUM GROUP: Appeals Court Order in Goldstein Suit to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- RUM GROUP, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mike Goldstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUM Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06304, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case type is stated as Original Proceeding, Petition, Private. The appellate case is styled as Goldstein v. RUM Group, Inc., Case No. 26-4287, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 7, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent MIKE GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan Frysinger, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Defendant-Petitioner RUM GROUP, INC. is represented by: Gregory Dubinsky, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 - and - Andrew Breidenbach, Esq. THEODORA ORINGHER, PC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 SEAWORLD PARKS: Sends Misleading Commercial e-mails, Jackson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEANDRE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT LLC., d/b/a BUSCH GARDENS WILLIAMSBURG, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-02788-LKG (Md. Cir., Montgomery Cty., July 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant Seaworld Parks & Entertainment for its practice of sending false and misleading marketing and commercial emails to Maryland residents, including Plaintiff, in violation of the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely offers discounts on tickets to the Busch Gardens Williamsburg theme park to drive sales and profits. The Defendant extensively advertises these purported discounts, including by sending commercial emails to Maryland residents with subject lines promoting the discounts. For example, "ENDS TOMORROW! Save up to 50% on Admission." The Defendant frequently sends emails with subject lines emphasizing the supposed limited duration of its sales -- with attention-grabbing labels like "ENDS TONIGHTS," "LAST CHANCE!" "FINAL HOURS." This strategy creates a sense of urgency to act now, notwithstanding that the offer lasts longer than advertised, alleges the suit. The Defendant sends marketing emails to Maryland consumers containing false or misleading information in the subject lines, with the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving and misleading the recipient, the suit asserts. The Defendant often sends emails asserting and advertising that a sale has been "EXTENDED", notwithstanding that, upon information and belief, the Defendant always intended and planned for the sale to last through the "extended" time. And even when the sale isn't expressly "extended," it is routinely replaced with a substantially similar sale, it adds. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment LLC, doing business as Busch Gardens Williamsburg, is a theme park and entertainment company that owns and operates theme parks throughout the United States and Abu Dhabi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com SIGNATURE DESIGN: Raymundo Seeks to Recover Regular and OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- VICENTE RAYMUNDO, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE DESIGN PAVING CORPORATION OF FLORIDA GULF COAST, and STEVEN J. TORNARI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-2197 (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2026) is a collective action complaint aiming to recover regular and overtime compensation arising from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly-situated who worked for more than 40 hours in a week were not properly compensated during one or more weeks on or after May 2023. Plaintiff Raymundo was employed by Defendant for 39 weeks as a non-exempt, full-time paver who handled and worked with goods and materials moved in interstate commerce at any time during the business and was paid the same amount regardless of the number of hours worked. Signature Design is a construction and paving contractor operating in Lee County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com SKY ZONE: Meyer Sues Over Use of Synthetic Fragrance Products ------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY MEYER, STEFANY JOHNSON, and ELIZABETH ANNE RIGHTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKY ZONE FRANCHISE GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-06882 (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act, False Advertising Act, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of employing synthetic fragranced products in its facilities despite actual or constructive knowledge of their harmful and disabling effects. According to the complaint, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests, vendors and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Sky Zone Franchise Group, LLC is a company that maintains recreational facilities, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com SPANX LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Russo Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPANX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05776 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.spanx.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Spanx, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com SPECIALTY TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALTY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5937 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.svsound.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 21, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a SB-1000 Pro Subwoofer from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Specialty Technologies, LLC operates the website that offers audio speakers, subwoofers and cables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SPECTRUM PHARMA: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit all persons and entities that purchased the Common Stock of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NIZAR SAMI AYOUB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J. RIGA, and FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, Defendants. Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (VEC) (Consolidated) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("SPECTRUM") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 12, 2022 AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2022, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THE CUSIP NUMBER FOR SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (FORMERLY TRADED AS NASDAQ: SPPI) COMMON STOCK WAS 84763A108. 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 Southern District of New York ("Court"), that the action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class action, except for certain Persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 1, 2026 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at www.strategicclaims.net/AyoubvSpectrum/. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Nizar Sami Ayoub ("Lead Plaintiff"), and defendants Spectrum, Francois J. Lebel, and Thomas J. Riga ("Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation on behalf of the Class for $7 million in cash ("Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Litigation. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Valerie E. Caproni at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel P. Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the Settlement of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation for $7 million 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 Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys’ fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Lead Plaintiff its costs and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/AyoubvSpectrum/, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the website. IF YOU PURCHASED SPECTRUM COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 12, 2022, AND SEPTEMBER 22, 2022, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. 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") to the Claims Administrator by mail (postmarked no later than October 12, 2026) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on October 12, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 12, 2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement); the Proof of Claim; the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice); and other important documents may be accessed online at www.strategicclaims.net/AyoubvSpectrum/, or by writing to the Claims Administrator: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Securities Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries should NOT be directed to 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: KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Jeffrey P. Campisi 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 jcampisi@kaplanfox.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY OCTOBER 30, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY THE SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE $7 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $250,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE REQUEST FOR AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL BY OCTOBER 30, 2026, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: JUNE 22, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STATE FARM: Bradley Sues Over Insurance Policy's UIM Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Seth Bradley, individually, as surviving father and statutory beneficiary of Tariq Riley-Bradley, deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04983-SHD (D. Ariz., July 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant alleging that it refuses to follow its own policy language and Arizona law. The Plaintiff brings this action both individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated State Farm insureds, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. On February 11, 2026, Tariq Riley-Bradley was struck by a 2019 Toyota Camry driven eastbound by Jacob Paul Thibado. At the time of the Collision, Thibado carried motor vehicle liability insurance applicable to the Collision through GEICO Secure Insurance Company, under a policy with bodily injury limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Thibado had no other liability insurance applicable to the Collision. Thibado's $25,000 liability limit does not adequately compensate for the wrongful death of Tariq. Thibado was, therefore, underinsured. Plaintiff Seth Bradley is the surviving father of Tariq. Bradley is the named insured on State Farm Personal Car Policy No. 0860407-SFP-03 (the "Policy"). At the time of the Collision, the Policy was in full force and effect. On June 12, 2026, Bradley's counsel provided State Farm with the requested payment instructions and proof of underlying coverage, directing that the settlement draft be made payable solely to Bradley and his counsel's law firm, and providing the express Policy language establishing that Bradley is the only person to whom underinsured motorist ("UIM") proceeds are payable. However, State Farm refused to pay as directed. According to State Farm, "Heirs of a deceased are entitled to a claim whether or not they reside with the deceased or in the household for the insurance policy. Both parents have a right to a portion of the settlement." According to the complaint, Arizona law allows insurers to draft their standard form auto insurance policies such that, when an insured dies in a motor vehicle accident, recovery of UIM benefits for that wrongful death is limited to persons who are both qualified to bring a wrongful death action pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-612 and meet the requirements of A.R.S. Section 20-259.03. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company wrote that same limitation into its own standard Arizona policy form. The Underinsured Motor Vehicle ("UIM") Coverage of State Farm's Arizona personal car policy narrowly defines "Insured" to mean the named insured and "resident relatives" (along with permissive occupants of covered vehicles), and its payment provisions permit payment only to the insured, the insured's surviving spouse, a parent or guardian of a minor or incompetent insured, or "[a] person authorized by law to receive such payment." Despite this, State Farm refuses to follow its own policy language and Arizona law when it owes a full UIM policy limit to one or more "Insureds" on that coverage but one or more other persons exist who are not "Insureds" but qualify to bring a wrongful death action pursuant to A.R.S. Section 12-612, asserts the complaint. At the time of his death, Tariq lived with Bradley and was a "resident relative" insured covered under the Policy's UIM Coverage. Bradley, as the named insured, and Tariq, as a resident relative, were each "insureds" under the Policy's UIM Coverage. No other person is an insured under that coverage with respect to the Collision. Bradley is the only person who is both qualified to bring a wrongful death action for Tariq's death under Arizona law and an insured under the UIM coverage of the Policy. As such, under Arizona law and the Policy's express terms, Bradley alone is entitled to the UIM proceeds payable for Tariq's wrongful death. Tariq's mother, Kenyatta Faith Riley, did not reside in Bradley's household at the time of the Collision. She is not a named insured under the Policy; not a "resident relative;" and not an "insured" or "surviving insured" under the Policy's Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage, the suit contends.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. John M. DeStefano, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Benjamin Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR & GOMEZ LAW 2600 N. 44th Street, B-101 Phoenix, AZ 85008 Telephone: (602) 403-0212 E-mail: bt@taylorgomezlaw.com STATUS AUDIO: Williams Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATUS AUDIO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05899 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.status.co/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Status Audio LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal STUBHUB INC: Illegally Sells World Cup Tickets, Stasium Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW STASIUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05744 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's False Advertising Law, and conversion. The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the federal, state, and common laws by selling 2026 North American World Cup tickets without authorization. According to the complaint, the Defendant sells World Cup tickets online, including warranties called the Fan Protect Guarantee, despite the fact that only FIFA controls the distribution and sale of these tickets. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, omissions, and conversion, the Plaintiff and similarly situated World Cup fans incurred financial losses because they did not get what they paid for on the resale market. StubHub, Inc. is a seller of ticket for sporting events, concerts, theatre, and festivals, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 626 RexCorp Plaza, Suite 605 Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 559-6072 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com TASTY DELICIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Johnson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRINE JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTY DELICIOUS WEST INDIAN BAKERY & RESTAURANT INC. and MARK LAWRENCE, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04313 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026) is a class and collective action complaint arising from the failure of the Defendant to pay overtime premium pay which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law The Plaintiff alleges on her behalf and other similarly situated current and former employees, that Defendants failed to pay the minimum wage, overtime premium pay and pay spread of hours compensation; failed provide the notice and acknowledgment of payrate and payday; and failed to furnish accurate wage statement under NYLL. Plaintiff Johnson worked for the Defendants at their locations in Brooklyn, New York. Tasty Delicious is an operator of a chain of Jamaican and West Indian restaurants across New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Travis Pierre-Louis, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, New York 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com travis@lipskylowe.com TENNESSEE: Lucy Class Action Suit Challenges Section 1 of H.B. 1704 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy, Benjamin, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jonathan Skrmetti, in his official capacity as the Tennessee Attorney General, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00998 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2026) challenges Section 1 of House Bill 1704 (114th General Assembly), which purports to give Tennessee state officials the unprecedented power to regulate the removal of noncitizens. Section 1 of H.B. 1704 makes it a Class A misdemeanor under state criminal law for certain noncitizens with final removal orders to intentionally fail or refuse to depart Tennessee—expelling these individuals from their homes under threat of up to a year in jail. Under the extraordinary scheme in H.B. 1704, the State of Tennessee has created its own crime that applies only to certain noncitizens who refuse or fail to depart the state and that empowers Tennessee state police to arrest and detain noncitizens for alleged violations, and Tennessee state prosecutors to bring charges in state courts. The federal government has no role in the enforcement of this crime, says the suit. Plaintiff Lucy is a 58-year-old citizen of a foreign nation. She entered the United States in about 2000 on a visitor's visa and overstayed her visa. Because she had been admitted, the government charged her as deportable under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(1)(B) for being a noncitizen who remained beyond her authorized period of admission. The Defendants include Jeff Long, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security for the State of Tennessee; Charme Allen, in their official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Sixth Judicial District of Tennessee; Russell Johnson, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Ninth Judicial District of Tennessee; Bryant C. Dunaway, in their official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Thirteenth District of Tennessee; Jason Lawson, in their official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Fifteenth Judicial District of Tennessee; Glenn Funk, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twentieth Judicial District of Tennessee; Stacey Edmonson, in her official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty First Judicial District of Tennessee; Ray Crouch, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty Third Judicial District of Tennessee; Neil Thompson, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty Fourth Judicial District of Tennessee; Mark Davidson, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty Fifth Judicial District of Tennessee; Jody Pickens, in her official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty Sixth Judicial District of Tennessee; Fred Agee, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Twenty Eighth Judicial District of Tennessee; and Steve Mulroy, in his official capacity as the District Attorney General for the Thirtieth Judicial District of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: hsteinberg@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org - and - Noor Zafar, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: nzafar@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU Foundation of Tennessee P.O. Box 120160 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 320-7260 E-mail: lucas@aclu-tn.org zscout@aclu-tn.org - and - Peter McGraw, Esq. Efren Olivares, Esq. Kevin Siegel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 1101 14th Street, Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: mcgraw@nilc.org olivares@nilc.org siegel@nilc.org - and - Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, Esq. Zee Scout, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TENNESSEE P.O. Box 120160 Nashville, TN 37212 TEXAS HEALTH: Strong Appeals Court Order to 2nd Ct. of Appeals -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM STRONG is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled William Strong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Texas Health Resources, et al., Defendants, Case No. 141-319675-20, in the 141st District Court of Texas. The case type is stated as miscellaneous/other civil. The appellate case is captioned William Strong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated vs. Texas Health Resources and Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, Case No. 02-26-00438-CV, in the Second Court of Appeals, Texas, filed on July 7, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM STRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Peter F. Bagley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER BAGLEY PLLC 2304 West Interstate 20, Ste. 240 Arlington, TX 76017 Telephone: (817) 961-1010 Defendants-Appellees TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, et al. are represented by: Greg S. Gober, Esq. Gregory P. Blaies, Esq. BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, LLP 100 Throckmorton St., Suite 1400 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 334-0800 Facsimile: (817) 334-0574 TRANS UNION: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Kaplan Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRANS UNION LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lesley Kaplan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans Union LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged consumer credit violation. On Sept. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted on Apr. 29, 2026. The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All consumers in the United States and its Territories to whom the Defendant sent a "Letter 775," similar in form to the one it sent the Plaintiff on Oct. 14, 2023 denying her block request, from two years before filing of the Complaint until the date of any class certification Order in this matter." The Plaintiff Lesley Kaplan shall serve as the class representative; and the law firm of Francis Mailman Soumilas, PC shall serve as class counsel. The Court further entered an order that the parties are to meet and confer and submit a proposed form of notice for the Court's approval within 14 days upon entry of this order so that the best practicable notice under the circumstances may be given to the class members. The appellate case is styled as Lesley Kaplan v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 26-2678, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Defendant-Appellant TRANS UNION LLC is represented by: Shay Dvoretzky, Esq. Anand S. Raman, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM 1440 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7370 (202) 371-7019 - and - Raza Rasheed, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200 N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 687-5563 - and - Parker Rider-Longmaid, Esq. SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 573-4807 - and - Samantha L. Southall, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY 50 S. 16th Street Two Liberty Place, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Bessemer Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BESSEMER SYSTEM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00644 (W.D. Wis., July 17, 2026) alleges that TruStage failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated credit unions and credit union members' private and confidential information. Financial service and insurance providers -- such as TruStage -- are acutely aware of the critical importance of cybersecurity this digitally interconnected world. TruStage provides business and operational insurance for credit unions (including cybersecurity and risk management products), lending protection products (such as GAP for auto loans), employee benefit investment account platforms, and consumer insurance, and provides Cybersecurity Protection to credit unions across the country through its Business Protections Solutions Suite of products. Plaintiff Bessemer FCU, a federally chartered, not-for-profit credit union, and Class Members entrusted TruStage with highly sensitive and protected confidential information ranging from personal details to financial including those of Plaintiff's members. TruStage sold a variety of services to Bessimar FCU to be a trusted custodian of Plaintiff's members' confidential information. It was required to and did, like other Class Members, provide Defendant with Confidential Information. Accordingly, the Company maintained insufficient safeguards to protect the Confidential Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. Even so, TruStage continued to market and sell its inadequate services to Plaintiff, says the suit. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. sells commercial and consumer insurance and protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. WEXLER,BOLEY&ELGERSMALLP 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kae@wbe-llp.com - and - David L. Hecht, Esq. Lori G. Feldman, Esq. HECHTPARTNERSLLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 851-6821 E-mail: dhecht@hechtpartners.com lfeldman@hechtpartners.com - and - Charles J. Nerko, Esq. Walter E. Swearingen, Esq. Neil P. Diskin, Esq. NERKOPLLC 1178 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (518) 363-9100 E-mail: cnerko@nerko.com wswearingen@nerko.com ndiskin@nerko.com TUMI INC: Ahmed Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as YOUSUF AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TUMI, INC., Case No. 2026-010412-CA-01 (Filed May 22, 2026) was removed from the the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 15, 2026. The Southern District of Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-24821-CMA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Tumi operates as a specialty retailer. The Company offers luggage, backpacks, bags, and accessories. Tumi serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jenny N. Perkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Telephone: 215) 864-8378 Facsimile: (215) 864-8999 E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com UNITED PARCEL: Underpays Delivery Drivers & Unloaders, Reeves Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON REEVES, MISSI GALYON, and JESUS LARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03038 (D. Colo., July 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide rest breaks in violation of the Colorado Constitution art. XVIII, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as delivery drivers or unloaders at any time between 2005 and 2026. United Parcel Service, Inc. is a courier company, with its principal place of business in Sandy Springs, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Gamez Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TODD M. LYONS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Victor Cruz Gamez, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02011-MTK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Plaintiffs allege that federal immigration officials arrested them without a warrant, without probable cause that they had committed an immigration violation, and without probable cause that they were likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. On Jan. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai granted on June 24, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' class definitions are sufficient, and the proposed classes meet the requirements of Rule 23. The appellate case is styled as Cruz Gamez, et al. v. Lyons, et al., Case No. 26-4343, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 8, 2026. [BN] Petitioners-Appellees VICTOR CRUZ GAMEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings, Esq. Kelsey Lynn Provo, Esq. Nelly Paola Garcia Orjuela, Esq. Rosa Giuliana Saavedra Vanacore, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 - and - Stephen William Manning, Esq. IMMIGRANT LAW GROUP, PC P.O. Box 40103 Portland, OR 97240 Respondents-Appellants TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), et al. are represented by: Amber Ashley Arthur, Esq. Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 - and - Daniel F. Mummolo, Esq. Blair O'Connor, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 - and - Ariana N. Garousi, Esq. Susanne Beth Luse, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1000 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Madison Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- SHONETTE MADISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case: 1:26-cv-08463 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2026) is a collective and class action complaint arising from the Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies and practices of rounding employee time clock entries, editing employees clocked times, and/or only paying employees from their shift start time to their shift end time failed to the pay the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked in a workweek including overtime pay. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt Phlebotomist from approximately June 2025 until approximately June 2026. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER is a hospital system with headquarters in Illinois.[BN] The plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com robi@ohlaborlaw.com USAA CASUALTY: Newell Class Suit Removed to D.S.C. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sandra Newell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sarah Anne Kellerman and USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 2026-CP-1002714, was removed rom the Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, South Carolina to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division on July 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02845-DCN to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff's class definition includes "All persons who, at any time within three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, were third-party claimants -- i.e., not USAA's own policyholders -- presenting property damage claims arising from accidents in South Carolina caused by USAA insureds, whose damaged vehicles were (a) two (2) years old or newer at the time of the loss, or had fewer than twenty-five thousand (25,000) miles, and (b) for whom USAA applied its Quality Replacement Parts ("QRP") program to specify or authorize non-OEM aftermarket, recycled, or remanufactured crash parts in lieu of OEM parts, without the claimant's informed written consent to non-OEM parts, and without establishing that the specified non-OEM part was equal to the OEM part in fit, quality, performance, and warranty." The Plaintiff alleges that "[u]pon information and belief, USAA's QRP program has been applied to thousands of third-party claimants in South Carolina whose vehicles were damaged by USAA insureds, including new and low-mileage vehicles for which the use of aftermarket or recycled crash parts fails to restore the vehicle to its pre-loss condition." Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company is an American insurance and financial services company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert W. Whelan, Esq. WHELAN MELLEN & NORRIS LLC 89 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: 843-998-7099 E-mail: robbie@whelanmellen.com - and - Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. Kevin P. Zimmerman, Esq. Aaron M. Stevenson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: 614-228-1541 E-mail: reckelberry@bakerlaw.com kzimmerman@bakerlaw.com astevenson@bakerlaw.com VITA COCO: Camacho Class Suit Seeks Tariff Overcharges' Refund -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE VITA COCO COMPANY INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-06043 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other U.S. consumers who purchased Vita Coco's products during the tariff period and who paid inflated prices reflecting Defendant's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. The class action lawsuit seeks to prevent such an unjust result. Unlike companies such as FedEx and UPS who have explicitly stated they will pass tariff refunds back to their customers, Vita Coco has made no such commitment. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of these tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against Coco Vita for its retention of a substantial windfall generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in February 2025, the Trump administration imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. The tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that President Trump's IEEPA based tariffs are unlawful. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. (2026) (slip op. at 20). Resulting from that decision, importers who paid those IEEPA-based tariffs -- including Vita Coco -- became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). To facilitate the refunds to thousands of U.S. importers -- including Vita Coco -- the CBP created a tariff refund website to manage IEEPA duty refunds following the Supreme Court's February 20, 2026, Learning Resources, Inc. decision. Plaintiff Camacho purchased a Vita Coco 330 ML FP, priced at $21.98, imported from Brazil, a country subject to tariffs imposed under the IEEPA. The Defendant is a New York company known for its plant-based beverages. They produce coconut water, coconut milk and protein-infused water, PWR LIFT.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. 134 Mineola Blvd, 2nd Floor Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: 516-873-9550 Facsimile: 516-747-5024 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Andre Bèlanger Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com Andre.Belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com WILLOW HEALTH: Wilce Balks at Illegal Personal Info Disclosure -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTY WILCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLOW HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02465-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal., July 15, 2026) arises from the Defendant's improper, unauthorized, and illegal disclosure of users' personally identifiable information and/or protected health information to third-party advertising platforms and data analytics companies without those users' knowledge or consent. The Defendant owns, maintains, and controls the web domains www.willowhealth.com www.startwillow.com and app.willowhealth.com along with related properties and subdomains. Through the website, users solicit telehealth services and health products, especially prescriptions of glucagon-like peptide-1 medications for weight loss and diabetes management. According to the complaint, the Defendant has systematically violated its users' privacy rights by using tracking technologies in its website that capture and transmit PII and PHI to third parties for marketing and analytics purposes including, but not limited to, selling PII and PHI to advertisers, profiling users without their knowledge, targeting users with advertisements based on their medical conditions, and other improper uses of PII and PHI. These disclosures occur without website users' knowledge, consent, or authorization, in direct violation of federal and state privacy laws, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the putative Classes to secure redress for: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (ii) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (iii) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (iv) violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; (v) violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act; (vi) violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act; (vii) violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act; (viii) breach of contract; (ix) unjust enrichment; and (x) invasion of privacy. Willow Health Services, Inc. is an online platform for glucagon-like peptide-1 prescription services to patients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor Sandoval, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Ste 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com YKK AP: Faces Peters Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YKK AP AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03820-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about November 17, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. YKK AP America Inc. is a manufacturer of commercial façade systems and residential windows and doors, with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree St., Ste. 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, PA 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 Email: Rachel@dapeer.com YKK AP: Tague Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Private Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALAYNA TAGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YKK AP AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03818-SCJ (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on January 22, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. YKK AP America Inc. is a manufacturer of commercial façade systems and residential windows and doors, with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***