260730.mbx

260730.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 30, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 151 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Adger Volunteer Sues Over Toxic Chemicals Exposure 789123 INC: Faces Sossa Suit Over Improper OT Pay Calculation AAA COOPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Crowe Sues Over Defective FreeStyle Sensors ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Powell Files Suit Over Data Breach AEROVIRONMENT INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Suit Claims ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid AMC ENTMT: Faces Fraud Suit Challenging 2023 Stockholder Settlement AMC ENTMT: Plaintiff Drops Class Claims, Pursues Individual Suit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Move Filed in Antitrust Row AMERICAN COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Lawsuit AMERIT FLEET: Faces Scott Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. AMOTEC INC: Tucker Sues Over Discriminatory Referral Practices ANATOMIC AND CLINICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ANTHROPIC PBC: Judge Approves $1.5BB Copyright Class Settlement APPFOLIO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Transaction Fees APPLE INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Face ID ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Tea Labels ASP UNIFRAX: ClassAction.org Investigates Alkegen Data Breach ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martinez Says AT&T MOBILITY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $1.75MM BAKER HUGHES: Reckstin Class Suit Claims Dismissed Again BATH FITTER: Bobeck Sues Over Alleged Data Security Breach BAYADA HOME: Beaulieu Sues Over Leaked Private Information BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Fettig Sues Over Mislabeled Wemo Products BIG Y FOODS: Behjoue Sues Over Underperforming Target-Date Funds BLUE DOLPHIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molnar Alleges BOEING COMPANY: Appeals Court Decertifies Shareholder Class Action BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE: Fails to Offer Meal, Rest Breaks, Cuevas Says BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Removes Olson Suit to N.D. Cal. CARLTON SENIOR: Hipp Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. CLARITY TELECOM: Madsen Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Colo. CLEVELAND PUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schrank Alleges COMCAST CORP: Cannon Sues Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge COSIDLA INC: Deceives Women Into Buying Supplement, Orozco Says COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Misleading Emails' Suit for $14M CPAP MEDICAL: Faces Conner Suit Over Data Security Breach CSX CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suits Over Fuel Surcharge Practices CV IMPORTS LLC: Thomas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Supplements' Deceptive Labels DALLY INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yeager Alleges DATAVANT LLC: McIntosh Files Wage-and-Hour Suit DELIGHT LI MANAGEMENT: Alexander Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. DIAMOND STATE: Boese Sues Over Concession Agreement Violations DIGNITY COMMUNITY: Peck Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Underpays Correction Officers, Love Suit Says DOCTUSUSA INC: Acevedo Files Suit in N.D. California DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trujillo Says DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Schifani Says DRIVE & SHINE: Fralish Files Class Suit Over TCPA Breach DRIVE SALLY: Faces Suit Over Misleading Vehicle Rental Prices DRUGS MADE IN AMERICA: M&A Probes Merger With Power Analytics EPIC SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Investigates "No-Poach" Agreements EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Acosta Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California ERNST & YOUNG LLP: Clarke Files Suit in W.D. New York ERNST & YOUNG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ERNST & YOUNG: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hughes Says ERNST & YOUNG: Fails to Secure Private Info, Martinez Alleges ERNST & YOUNG: Wyatt Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII EXACT SCIENCES: Cano Sues Over Private Data Security Breach EXPRESS SERVICE: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California FAIR HARBOR: Thomas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FASHION NOVA: Medina TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. FELLOWS HYMOWITZ: Underpays Medical Paralegal, Cook Suit Says FIESTA INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, McQuinn Says FINANCIAL GROUP: Brazier Sues Over Leaked Private Information FIRST INTERSTATE: Drell Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty FLEXIBLE FINANCE: Turner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York FLY-E GROUP: Faces Securities Class, Derivative Actions in E.D.N.Y FUNDMYBIZ.COM INC: Vargas Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. FURMAN FOODS: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval GENERAL MOTORS: Milan Files Suit in C.D. California GOLI NUTRITION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Ramos Suit Removed to S.D. California GREENE COUNTY, NY: Mistretta Files Suit in N.D. New York GROUPON INC: Kolici Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts HANDSHAKE AI: Boggs Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Pay HDR GLOBAL: BKX Services Sues Over Fraudulent Insider Trading HEART CARE: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach HOUSE OF LORETO: Faces Suit Over Nursing Home's Staffing, Fees HR-REVOLUTION LLC: Shelton Sues Over Illegal Background Check INTERCEPT MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Alleges INTERCEPT MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says IQ CREDIT: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees' Suit for $1-Mil. JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Prepares to Settle Overpaid 2023 Property Taxes JUPITER MEDICAL: Roker Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri JUUL LABS: BC Court Certifies Class Suit on E-Cigarette Devices K LINE LOGISTICS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KB 333: Yang Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages KEYSTONE POWDERED: Jennings Files Suit in PA Ct. of Common Pleas KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Telluride SUVs Battery Defect KINGSTON BRASS: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Vanderpoel Says KRAUSE AND KINSMAN: Heard Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana LEMONTREE HEALTHCARE: Williams Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. LENDINGTREE LLC: Todorov Balks at Illegal Text Message Campaigns LIVIONEX INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Early-Stage Securities Suits over SEC Filing LONDON COMPUTER: Faces Porter Suit Over Rent Payments' Junk Fees LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Parker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Variable Insurance Products LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Short Class Suit Seeks OT Pay for CW Specialists LXP INDUSTRIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Brookfield Asset MASIS STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Richard Files Suit in D. Massachusetts MATTRESS FIRM: Wedge Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Cruz Files Labor Class Action in Cal. Super. MAXLINEAR INC: Faces 2 Securities Class Actions Over Merger Claims MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities and Derivative Suits MERITAGE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Says MII BRAND IMPORT: Leyva Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois MIRBEAU HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Fees MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Dismissal Hearing Set, Derivative Suit Filed MONSANTO COMPANY: Recchion Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Taylen Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOODSWINGS LLC: Agrees to Settle Ticket Class Action Lawsuit MVP VIP HOLDCO: Davis Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Kan. NAUTILUS INTERNATIONAL: Mixon Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. NEIST MEDIA: Grossman Sues Over Deceptive Mouth Tape Ads NINTENDO CO: Bids to Dismiss Tariff Rebates Class Action Lawsuit NJ LENDERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $100,000 NOVO NORDISK: Sterner Files Class Suit in D.N.J. NTN BEARING: Edwards Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info NTN BEARING: Mahr Files Suit in N.D. Illinois OBAGI COSMECEUTICALS: Underpays Company Employees, Lopez Says PACIFIC GAS: $100M Securities Class Settlement Gets Prelim Approval PARANA PLAYS: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky PENOBSCOT VALLEY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach PG&E CORP: $100M Securities Class Settlement Gets Prelim Approval PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Archer Sues Over Data Security Breach PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Bank Sues Over Misrepresented Flash Drive Storage PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Fortune Consumer Suit Removed to D. Md. PRIMORIS SERVICES: Boston Retirement Balks at Misleading Statements PRIMORIS SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over False Company Statements QUIK PICK: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Johnson Alleges REALPAGE INC: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $360MM REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: McNelis Files Class Suit in N.D. Ill. REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Settles Job Posting Info Class Suit for $4.26MM REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 14 RTX CORP: Dismissed Securities Suit on Appeal, Derivatives Filed SAC FINANCE: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages SAIA MOTOR: Blakely Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. SAM'S CLUB: Lopez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Termination SANBARCOLLBUSCOM INC: King Sues Over Employment Law Violation SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Multiple PAGA Class Suits SAVINGS BANK: Garcia Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend Hall ERISA Class Suit in Pa. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Hearing in DeSimone Set for August 12 SF BAY PIZZA: Bishop Files Employment Class Suit in Cal. Super. SHINESTY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SLM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Alleged Misstatements SOLIANT HEALTH: Settles Job Posting Class Action for $496,550 SOLVENTUM CORP: Salgado Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Minn. SOLVENTUM CORP: Watson Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info STATE FARM: Kozak Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. STOP & SHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinckey Alleges STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Enriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Seeks Equal Access to Commercial Property SUNTRUST BANK: $240MM Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Sept 14 SUPERIOR FENCE: Vega Labor Suit Filed in Cal. Super. TACO BELL: Oliva Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. TARZANA TREATMENT: C.W. Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Cal. TAYLOR FARMS: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Lettuce, Leafy Greens TAYLOR FRESH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contaminated Lettuce TIMEX GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Commercial Emails TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Brown Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Medrano Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal UNION PACIFIC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Finger Scan System UNITED STATES: Boring Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. UNLIMITED SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach US STAR TRUCKING: Kikosh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California VACASA LLC: Horrocks Sues Over Rentals' Hidden Booking Fees VENTURA COUNTY: Sanchez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. VGW LTD: Payne Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky VICTORY PACKAGING: Chevry Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VYBEZ EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lyon Alleges W.S.B. & ASSOCIATES: Mixon Employment Suit Filed in Cal. Super. WEST PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed WHITFIELD REGIONAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach WORKDAY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI-Powered Hiring System WORKER BEES: Medina Seeks to Recover Minimum and Regular Pay WORLD RUGBY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Players' Brain Injuries WS FUNDING LLC: Fenton Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California YOULEND US: Buechler Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Private Data ZOLL MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.5MM ********* 3M COMPANY: Adger Volunteer Sues Over Toxic Chemicals Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- ADGER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALABAMA, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY), EIDP, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CORTEVA, INC., CB GARMENT, INC., ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC., FIRE-DEX, LLC, GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC., LION GROUP, INC., MAJESTIC FIRE APPAREL, INC., MILLIKEN & COMPANY, MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C., MSA SAFETY COMPANY, INC., SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEDFAST USA, INC., and VIKING LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT (AMERICA), INC., Defendants, Case 2:26-cv-01284-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 21, 2026) is a class action seeking equitable and monetary relief on for injuries and damages arising from the exposure of the Plaintiff and Class Members to toxic chemicals contained in the protective equipment manufactured by the Defendants. The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased and/or used Defendants' polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) Turnout Gear but the gear have released, and continues to release toxic PFAS that contaminate firehouses and trucks and are absorbed, inhaled, and ingested by Adger's Fire Department and other Class Members' firefighters. PFAS are toxic chemicals, immunotoxic agents, and carcinogenic compounds that pose major health risks to firefighters and others who are exposed to them. Defendant Chemours Co. is a spin-off of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, which later became known as EIDP, Inc. which was launched as a publicly traded company in 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Starr Culpepper, Esq. CULPEPPER & ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 145 Adger, AL 35006 Telephone: (205) 529-9413 Email: starr@culpepper.law - and - Shelby Yarbrough, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BARRETT & YARBROUGH, LLC P.O. Box 55811 Birmingham, AL 35255-8511 Telephone: (205) 287-2922 Email: shelby@bylegalservices.com 789123 INC: Faces Sossa Suit Over Improper OT Pay Calculation ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 789123, INC. dba ESTIATORIO MILOS, a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-02221 (D. Nev., July 22, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to include mandatory service charge distributions in Plaintiff's and Collective Members' regular rate when computing overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the base hourly wage rates Defendant paid Mr. Sosa and Class Members were less than one and one-half times the minimum rate prescribed pursuant to N.R.S. section 608.250. The Defendant imposed a mandatory service charge on customer checks for parties of eight or more guests and for private "buyout" events, calculated as a dollar amount based on a fixed percentage of the total check. These charges were not discretionary. Customers had no ability to modify, reduce, or decline the service charge amount. 11. Defendant distributed a portion of these service charges to Mr. Sosa and Class Members on a regular basis as part of their compensation, says the suit. Under the FLSA, distributed service charges constitute remuneration for employment and must be included in the regular rate of pay for calculating the applicable overtime rate. The Defendant failed to include service charge distributions in the calculation of Mr. Sosa's and Class Members' regular rate of pay when computing overtime compensation under the FLSA and N.R.S. section 608.018. Instead, the Defendant calculated overtime based solely on its employees' hourly wages, systematically underpaying overtime owed to all affected employees, the suit further asserts. Mr. Sosa worked as a Captain at Milos from on or around June 30, 2023, to October Mr. Sosa and all Class Members were paid a base hourly wage equal to the applicable Nevada minimum wage, plus tips and a fixed percentage of mandatory service charges set by Defendant. The Defendant operates Estiatorio Milos at the Venetian Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada and employs non-exempt, hourly employees including, but not limited to, captains, servers, bartenders, bussers, barbacks, hostesses, and food runners that regularly receive service charge distributions as part of their compensation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jemma E. Dunn, Esq. Matthew T. Hale, Esq. John M. Orr, Esq. GREENBERG GROSS LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 730 Las Vegas, NE 89135 Telephone: (702) 777-0888 Facsimile: (702) 777-0801 E-mail: JDunn@GGTrialLaw.com MHale@GGTrialLaw.com JOrr@GGTrialLaw.com AAA COOPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MICHEL CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAA COOPER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03435-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 23, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendant as a dock worker. AAA Cooper Transportation provides transportation and logistics services. The Company offers fleet maintenance and truckload brokerage, less-than-truckload freight transportation, and dedicated contract carriage. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elena Komsky, Esq. CANTRELL SCHUETTE, P.A. 401 E. Jackson Street, Ste. 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 705-6275 Email: ekomsky@lawcantrell.com paralegal@lawcantrell.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Crowe Sues Over Defective FreeStyle Sensors ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES CROWE, DAVID PEARLMAN, and LOUIS PLANERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-08419 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, fraudulent omission, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from Abbott's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus continuous glucose monitors. According to the complaint, Abbott advertised and marketed FreeStyle Sensors as accurate, effective, and safe for monitoring glucose levels while failing to disclose manufacturing defects causing the Sensors to give dangerously inaccurate low glucose readings. Unknown to the Plaintiffs and the Class members, Abbott failed to implement sufficient quality systems its U.S. manufacturing facility to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the FreeStyle Sensors, which led to incorrectly low glucose readings and a Class I Recall in January 2026. As a result of Abbott's omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members purchased the defective Sensors. Abbott Laboratories is a global healthcare company, with its principal place of business in Abbott Park, Illinois. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. is a manufacturer of glucose monitoring systems, with its principal place of business in Alameda, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-8656 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (973) 679-8656 Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Powell Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- WILMA POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05004 (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to maintain reasonable and/or adequate security measures to protect Plaintiff's and other class members' confidential information from unauthorized access and disclosure. The complaint relates that in connection with Defendant's services, Plaintiff directly or indirectly entrusted AdaptHealth with her Confidential Information. On June 15, 2026, a threat actor contacted AdaptHealth and claimed to have obtained data from its systems. By that point, the threat actor had already gained access to AdaptHealth's cloud applications, accessed external EHR portals, and exfiltrated data. Despite learning of the Data Beach on June 15, 2026, AdaptHealth has not yet provided notice to the United States Department of Health and Human Services or provided direct notice to individual patients impacted by the Data Breach, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendant's willful failure to prevent the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are more susceptible to identity theft, fraud, and other harm, and have experienced, will continue to experience, and face an increased risk of financial harms, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Confidential Information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages for identity theft, fraud, and time spent, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, adequate credit and medical monitoring services funded by Defendant, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems and practices to ensure they have reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard patients' Confidential Information that remains in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the future. Plaintiff Wilma Powell is an AdaptHealth patient, and AdaptHealth provides her with home medical equipment, including a walker. Defendant AdaptHealth Corp. is a national healthcare company that services approximately 4.3 million patients annually in all 50 states through its network of approximately 640 locations in 48 states. It provides sleep-therapy, respiratory, diabetes, mobility, and other healthcare-at-home equipment and services, and necessarily collects patient, treatment, insurance, claims, and billing information to provide those services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com AEROVIRONMENT INC: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROVIRONMENT, INC., WAHID NAWABI, KEVIN P. MCDONNELL, and MARY CLUM, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00875-UNA (D. Del., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding AeroVironment's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade AeroVironment securities at artificially inflated prices between June 24, 2025, through June 18, 2026. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly touted the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD's) Satellite Communications Augmentation Resource (SCAR) program and the company's production of military satellite command and control stations known as Broad Area Deployable Ground Terminal Enabling Resilient Communications (BADGERs) as central to AeroVironment's growth prospects. The Defendants told investors that the company had won the SCAR contract, that it was locked in, that the customer was asking for more, and that the company was very much on track to ramp revenue and improve margins as more BADGER systems moved into production. In reality, the Defendants' Class Period representations concerning the SCAR agreement were false. In truth, AeroVironment's agreement with the U.S. DoD to produce BADGERs for the SCAR program was not secure, AeroVironment was facing a significant threat of competition from other vendors for the work it was performing under that agreement, and there was a material risk that the Company would not continue to deliver products for the SCAR program, or would do so only on a significantly reduced basis, says the suit. When the truth emerged, the price of AeroVironment common stock declined by $18.28 per share, or 11 percent on June 22, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. AeroVironment, Inc. is a defense technology provider, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Calvano, Esq. Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 Email: anthony.calvano@blbglaw.com greg.varallo@blbglaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, PA 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Email: hannah@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schaefer v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00405 (N.D. Tex., Filed April 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification. The deadline for Plaintiff to file her Motion for Class Certification is extended until sixty (60) days after Defendant substantially completes the production of any class discovery ordered by the Court, following resolution of the pending Motion to Strike and Motion to Compel. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Allstate primarily underwrites personal lines of insurance—specializing in auto, vehicle, and property policies.[CC] AMC ENTMT: Faces Fraud Suit Challenging 2023 Stockholder Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that on Dec. 5, 2025, an action captioned "Masoner v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. et al." was filed by two purported AMC stockholders against the company, Adam Aron, and unspecified members of the company's board of directors in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The complaint asserted claims for, among other things, fraud, fraud on the court, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy based on the 2023 settlement of the action captioned "In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation" (Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages of approximately $4.2 million, disgorgement of approximately $18 million, and declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief. On March 18, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on March 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added certain current and former directors of the company's board of directors as defendants. On April 8, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is fully briefed and remains pending. AMC ENTMT: Plaintiff Drops Class Claims, Pursues Individual Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that on June 8, 2026, the plaintiff in a purported securities class action informed the court that he no longer intends to pursue claims on a class-wide basis and instead sought leave to file an amended complaint to assert individual claims. On June 9, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint. Initial case was filed against the company on Oct. 31, 2025 asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading public statements and omissions concerning the conversion of AMC Preferred Equity Units during the period from Aug. 18, 2022, to Nov. 1, 2023. It alleges that these statements and omissions caused damages of at least $178 million, plus pre-judgment interest. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a leading theatrical exhibition company that owns, operates, or has interests in movie theaters in the United States and international markets. It offers guests theatrical films and a variety of food and beverage options, premium formats, and other entertainment experiences. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Move Filed in Antitrust Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Airlines, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is currently facing a private party putative class action over antitrust complaints challenging the previously disclosed Northeast alliance between the company and JetBlue Airways Corporation. It is also facing a litigation arising out of the American Eagle Flight 5342 accident on Jan. 29, 2025. On Dec. 5, 2022, and Dec. 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue Airways Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust law in connection with said alliance. These actions were consolidated on Jan. 10, 2023. The private party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on Feb. 3, 2023. On Feb. 2, 2023, and Feb. 15, 2023, plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints against AAG and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively. In March 2023, AAG filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case asking to transfer that case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and consolidate it with the cases pending in that venue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that motion, and the remaining cases were consolidated with the other actions in the Eastern District of New York. In June 2023, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. They then filed a third amended complaint in August 2023. In September 2023, AAG, together with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In September 2024, the court denied that motion. AAG and JetBlue filed answers to the private party plaintiffs third amended complaint in October 2024. In July 2026, the remaining plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which AAG and JetBlue expect to oppose by October 2026. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and is defending against them vigorously. In a separate matter, the company is also defending litigation arising out of the American Eagle Flight 5342 accident. On Jan. 29, 2025, American Eagle flight 5342 was involved in a fatal accident in Washington, D.C. The Bombardier CRJ700 aircraft operated by PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA) was en route to Washington, D.C. from Wichita, Kansas when it was involved in a mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Beginning on Sept. 24, 2025, multiple wrongful death and survival actions have been filed in the District of Columbia related to the accident, and the company expects additional actions will continue to be filed. All cases have been assigned to the same judge and are subject to streamlined pleading and discovery procedures. The court required plaintiffs to file a single consolidated Master Complaint (MC), with later joining plaintiffs to file short form complaints adopting the MC and adding any plaintiff-specific information. The MC alleges that the U.S. Government, American and PSA negligently caused or contributed to the accident. Defendants respective deadlines to respond to the MC were in December 2025, and the U.S. Government filed an answer to the MC admitting liability only as to claims that the helicopter pilots were negligent in failing to see and avoid Flight 5342. American and PSA filed motions to dismiss asserting federal pre-emption and related failure to state a claim grounds, and the airlines motions to dismiss were denied without prejudice on Feb. 27, 2026. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 27, 2026. American and PSA answered the amended complaint and filed a cross-claim against the U.S. Government on June 10, 2026. Discovery is ongoing pursuant to an expedited 18-month discovery and pre-trial calendar, which sets the trial date for April 12, 2027, and the Company believes these lawsuits are without merit as to both American and PSA. American Airlines, Inc. is a major U.S. network carrier and the principal subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc., providing domestic and international air transportation for passengers and cargo. It operates an extensive global route network through its mainline operations and regional affiliates, including those flying under the American Eagle brand. AMERICAN COLLEGE: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals or businesses who received an unsolicited fax from the American College of Medical Quality between Aug. 6 and Aug. 10, 2022, may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $500 from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes an estimated 7,200 unique fax numbers. American College of Medical Quality Inc., along with Daniel J. McLaughlin and Affinity Strategies LLC, agreed to settle a class action lawsuit. The plaintiff claimed ACMQ and its codefendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related common law claims, including trespass to chattels and conversion. Who can file a claim for a TCPA settlement payout? Class members must have received a fax in the form of Exhibit A at a fax number between Aug. 6 and Aug. 10, 2022. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of up to $500. The total payout to all eligible claimants will not exceed $175,000. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or complete the claim form they received with their notice and mail or fax it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Loop Spine & Sports Center v. ACMQ, c/o Settlement Class Administrator, PO Box 23369, Jacksonville, FL 32241 Settlement administrator's fax number: (877) 430-1941 The claim deadline is Sept. 11, 2026. Required claim information -- claims require the fax number that received the qualifying fax. -- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $285,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $175,000 Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 11, 2026 -- Exclusion deadline: Sept. 11, 2026 -- Final approval (fairness) hearing: Oct. 22, 2026 When is the American College of Medical Quality TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit alleged that ACMQ, Affinity Strategies LLC and Daniel J. McLaughlin sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and common law claims such as trespass to chattels and conversion. The defendants denied the allegations but agreed to settle the case to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $500 Deadline: September 11, 2026 [GN] AMERIT FLEET: Faces Scott Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- MELVIN SCOTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIT FLEET SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06093 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026) is a collective and class action brought to remedy Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Members minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked, failed to fully reimburse for all necessary business-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages, failed to adequately provide notice upon hiring, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at the Bronx location, as a senior mobile technician from approximately March 2021 to approximately October 2025. Amerit Fleet Solutions operate as a provider of end-to-end fleet maintenance and management throughout the United States and in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Jonathan Apsan, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (516) 587-8423 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com j.apsan@gmail.com AMOTEC INC: Tucker Sues Over Discriminatory Referral Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH TUCKER, Individually and on behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs v. AMOTEC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01664 (N.D. Ohio, July 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking appropriate monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief based on Amotec's unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Ohio Revised Code. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its business, Amotec receives job orders from client businesses and then recruits, screens, refers, assigns, and places candidates to fill those job orders. As a Recruiter, Tucker's duties included conducting intake interviews, sourcing and bringing in new candidates, and matching and placing candidates with appropriate client job orders. During Tucker's employment, Amotec routinely accepted and complied with client requests to fill job orders based on the sex and/or age of candidates. A majority of the positions that Amotec filled and was actively filling required that candidates be of a particular sex. A large majority of Amotec's clients specifically requested male candidates, and at least one client, toward the end of Tucker's tenure, requested only female candidates. As a result of these practices, Amotec declined and/or refused to recruit, refer, place, and/or assign qualified candidates for employment opportunities because of their sex and/or age. Tucker repeatedly complained internally, including to his supervisor, that Amotec's referral and placement practices were discriminatory and unlawful, and objected that women could perform the jobs at issue just as well as men. In response to Tucker's complaints, Amotec management failed to correct the discriminatory practices and instead indicated to Tucker that the practices were an industry secret, assured him that the practices were how it works in the industry, and that Tucker was "just going to cause problems." Because Amotec refused to remedy its unlawful practices and made clear that Tucker's good-faith opposition would not be tolerated, Amotec rendered Tucker's working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in his position would have felt compelled to resign, and Tucker in fact felt compelled to resign on November 21–23, 2022. Tucker's resignation under these circumstances constituted a constructive discharge and a materially adverse employment action. Amotec subjected other employees who opposed or complained about its discriminatory referral and placement practices to the same or similar materially adverse action and constructive discharge, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Amotec's unlawful retaliation, Tucker and those similarly situated have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including lost income and benefits; lost employment opportunities; psychological, emotional, and mental anguish; distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and degradation; and pain and suffering, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Noah Tucker was employed by Amotec as a Recruiter from June 2022 until November 21–23, 2022. Defendant Amotec, Inc. is an executive recruiting and staffing firm. It is a domestic Ohio corporation that recruits, hires, refers, places, assigns, and otherwise provides employment opportunities to individuals to perform work for Amotec and at various third-party client worksites throughout Northeast Ohio and the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Hux, Esq. HUX LAW FIRM, LLC 5210 Herringbone Dr., #303 Cincinnati, OH 45227 Telephone: (937) 315-1106 Facsimile: (216) 359-7760 E-mail: jhux@huxlawfirm.com ANATOMIC AND CLINICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates Security Incident: What Happened? Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates (ACLA), a physician-owned pathology group in Tennessee, has reported a data breach affecting 169,626 individuals. According to a notice posted to its website, the healthcare practice became aware of potential unauthorized activity in its computer network on December 1, 2025. Following an investigation and a review of affected data, ACLA determined on April 27, 2026 that the personal information impacted by the breach may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and taxpayer identification numbers. The notice disclosed that the Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates data breach may have also exposed medical dates of service, provider names, mental and physical conditions, medical treatment or procedure information, diagnoses, clinical information, medical histories, patient account numbers and medical record numbers. The degree of personal and protected health information affected varied per individual. Notices were mailed to individuals affected by the ACLA data breach on June 23, 2026, a sample of which is shown below. What You Can Do After the Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Anatomic and Clinical Laboratory Associates to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] ANTHROPIC PBC: Judge Approves $1.5BB Copyright Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Chance Townsend, writing for The Mashable 101, reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has granted final approval to a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and a class of authors who accused the AI company of illegally downloading their copyrighted books, closing out what the court called the largest copyright class action settlement in history. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on July 20, resolving claims brought by lead plaintiffs Andrea Bartz, Kirk Wallace Johnson, and others over Anthropic's use of pirated libraries LibGen and PiLiMi to build its book collection. Notably, the underlying dispute centered on how Anthropic acquired the books, not on whether training AI models with copyrighted material is lawful. In an earlier ruling cited throughout the order, the court had already determined that the use of training itself constituted fair use. Per the settlement, authors and publishers whose pirated books ended up on Anthropic's "Works List" can claim roughly $3,000 per book -- about four times the usual minimum for copyright infringement cases. More than 91 percent of eligible works, over 440,000 books, have already been claimed. Anthropic also has to delete the pirated files it downloaded. The settlement only releases Anthropic from liability for how it acquired the training data in the past -- not from future lawsuits over what the chatbot generates, or new claims going forward. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin was explicit that the settlement does not release claims for future harm or claims "based on the output of AI models." The court overruled all 54 objections and comments filed by class members and third parties, including requests to expand the list of covered works, add non-monetary remedies like source attribution, or even deletion of Anthropic's models entirely. Per the court's judgment, those requests went beyond what this lawsuit could address. With the order finalized, the case is officially closed, though the court will keep an eye on how the money actually gets distributed to authors. [GN] APPFOLIO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Transaction Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Ian Comfort filed a class action lawsuit against AppFolio Inc. Why: Comfort claims AppFolio charges tenants a hidden transaction fee to pay rent through its online payment platform without adequately disclosing the charge. Where: The lawsuit was filed in California state court and later removed to federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges AppFolio charges tenants a hidden transaction fee to process rent payments without properly disclosing the charge. Plaintiff Ian Comfort claims AppFolio adds the fee at the final checkout step through a "negative option" that assumes consent unless a consumer removes it. He claims the fee amount is not revealed until the final "Confirm" screen, and AppFolio never explains how to avoid it, leading tenants to believe the charge is mandatory. "[AppFolio's] transaction fee is deceptive because the defendant does not inform consumers that they are subject to this additional fee that, in fact, is not permitted by their residential leases," the AppFolio class action lawsuit says. Comfort claims he has rented a San Francisco apartment since around August 2021 and pays rent monthly through AppFolio's platform via automatic bank payment. He alleges AppFolio began charging him the fee on July 31, 2023, without his consent, and that he was charged $2.49 for it on Sept. 1, 2025. Comfort and class members claim they suffered economic harm by paying more for rent than they otherwise would have. Comfort originally filed the lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court before AppFolio removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. AppFolio's hidden transaction not tied to any service, lawsuit claims The class action lawsuit argues the hidden fee is not tied to any real service AppFolio provides. "The transaction fee is merely a second payment -- in the form of a junk fee -- for the convenience that consumers are already paying for," the lawsuit says. The complaint argues for California's 2024 expansion of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, known as the Honest Pricing Law, which bars advertising a price that excludes mandatory hidden fees. Comfort claims AppFolio's practice amounts to illegal drip pricing because the full cost is not disclosed until deep into the payment process. Comfort seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass of consumers charged the hidden fee by AppFolio. The class action lawsuit alleges violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. Comfort and the class demand a jury trial and seek restitution, disgorgement, damages and injunctive relief. In a related case, a consumer claims CoStar Realty Information, the owner of Apartments.com, charged her an undisclosed $6.60 transaction fee on her rental payment. The plaintiff is represented by Sophia G. Gold, Amanda J. Rosenberg and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of KalielGold PLLC and Melissa S. Weiner and Ryan T. Gott of Pearson Warshaw LLP. The AppFolio class action lawsuit is Comfort v. AppFolio Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-04277-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Face ID --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Apple of unlawfully collecting, storing and using biometric information obtained from Illinois users' iris and/or retinal scans via Face ID without written consent. The 21-page lawsuit alleges that while Apple informs consumers that Face ID, which can be used to unlock Apple devices via facial scan, captures information about a user's facial geometry, the tech giant has failed to disclose in writing that Face ID captures iris and retinal scans. At the same time, Apple does not obtain written consent before collecting and storing consumers' biometric information, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the suit claims. Per the case, Apple, which touts its commitment to user privacy in advertising materials, collects iris and retinal scans regardless of whether Face ID is being used to unlock a device. Once a user's information has been obtained from an iris or retinal scan, Apple does not disclose that the scans are converted into mathematical data sets used to train its biometric collection algorithms, the filing says. The lawsuit shares that Apple, "in the recesses" of its website, states that Face ID cannot be set up unless "the camera can see your eyes." The case says that this is because the technology relies on information collected from iris or retinal scans. The privacy lawsuit contends that Apple has violated the BIPA by failing to properly notify Illinois consumers of its biometric information collection practices. Furthermore, the suit says the company has not disclosed how long a user's information is stored, or obtained written consent before capturing and collecting a consumer's biometric information. The complaint stresses that biometric identifiers -- such as iris and retinal scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of hand or facial geometry -- are immutable and unique. As such, the case says, there exists a "critical need" to protect and secure biometric data, as it is typically tied to a "vast repository" of other user information, such as purchasing history and habits, medical history, and more. Additionally, the camera used for Face ID, known as the TrueDepth camera, activates to monitor a user's iris or retinal location to support "attention aware" device features, such as dimming the display when a user is looking away or lowering the volume of alerts when a user's attention is focused on the device, the case conveys. "This is not possible without monitoring the location of one's iris or retinal scans, it too is never disclosed to users -- and it simply is not lawful under BIPA," the lawsuit says. Although Apple allows users to turn off iris and retinal scans for Face ID, the privacy lawsuit notes that most consumers would not be aware that it is an opt-out feature found not in privacy settings, but under "Accessibility Options." Moreover, once a user's biometric data has been collected, they have no avenue to delete or eliminate their biometric datasets from being used to train Apple's algorithms, the case states. The filing relays that Face ID-enabled Apple devices include Apple's iPhone X, XR, XS Max, XS, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max, 12, 12 Mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, 13, 13 Mini, 13 Pro, 13 Pro Max, 14, 14 Plus, 14 Pro, 14 Pro Max, 15, 15 Plus, 15 Pro, 15 Pro Max, 16, 16 Pro, 16 Pro Max, 16 Plus, 16e, 17, 17e, 17 Pro, 17 Pro Max, and Air, as well as Apple's iPad Pro 13-inch (M4 and M5), Pro 11-inch (M4 and M5), iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd through 6th generations), and Pro 11-inch (1st through 4th generations). The Apple class action lawsuit seeks to cover all Illinois residents who had their biometric identifiers, including scans of their iris or retina, collected, captured, received or otherwise obtained by Apple from an Apple device due to the use of Face ID or attention features. [GN] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Tea Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Action reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona Beverages USA LLC. Why: Plaintiffs claim AriZona markets its teas and fruit juice cocktails as "natural" despite the drinks containing synthetic ingredients. Where: The AriZona tea class action lawsuit was originally filed in California state court and has since been removed to federal court. An AriZona tea class action lawsuit accuses the company of marketing its teas and fruit juice cocktails as natural, even though the drinks contain synthetic ingredients. Plaintiffs David Ford and Ivette Archila claim AriZona labels its teas "100% Natural" and its fruit juice cocktails "All Natural," representations they say are false because the products contain synthetic additives, such as citric acid, ascorbic acid, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and ester gum. "This is a false advertising case about beverages labeled and sold as 'natural' despite containing synthetic ingredients," the complaint says. Ford and Archila argue AriZona commands a price premium by marketing the drinks as natural, since consumers value them as safer and healthier. They contend they paid more than they otherwise would have and would not have bought the products had they known the claims were misleading. The plaintiffs also argue the labeling is deceptive because shoppers cannot tell from the ingredient list alone whether an additive is synthetic, and say a reasonable consumer should not have to scour the back label to check the front-label natural claims. Ford and Archila initially filed their lawsuit in Lake County Superior Court in California; it has since been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all people in California who bought any of the products for personal or household use during the four years before the complaint was filed. AriZona tea class action alleges citric acid, HFCS highly manufactured The class action lawsuit alleges each of the challenged ingredients is manufactured, rather than found in nature. The complaint says citric acid can occur naturally in citrus fruit, but argues the version added to the drinks is produced industrially from a type of mold and amounts to a major industrial chemical made at more than 2 million tons a year. The complaint further alleges high fructose corn syrup is a heavily processed sweetener made from corn using chemicals, such as caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, along with enzymes that convert corn starch into fructose. It notes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has objected to calling the sweetener natural. Plaintiffs argue ascorbic acid, malic acid, phosphoric acid and ester gum are likewise created through chemical processing rather than drawn from plants. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and seek injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive damages. Currently, Gatorade is also facing a class action lawsuit alleging the sports drink makes false claims about hydrating better than water and containing no artificial ingredients. The plaintiffs are represented by Jack Fitzgerald, Melanie R. Monroe, Trevor Flynn, Kaden Byron, Allison Ferraro and Daniel Sachs of Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn P.C. The AriZona tea class action lawsuit is Ford, et al. v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. Case 1:26-cv-05657, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ASP UNIFRAX: ClassAction.org Investigates Alkegen Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Alkegen data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Alkegen data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Alkegen Security Incident: What Happened? ASP Unifrax Holdings, which has operated as Alkegen since January 2022, has reported a data breach that may have exposed sensitive information. A report filed with the Vermont Attorney General's Office on July 17, 2026 states that the Alkegen data breach impacted Social Security numbers and health records. According to a sample notice submitted to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, which can be seen below, the high-performance specialty materials manufacturer has started to notify affected individuals. The Alkegen data breach appeared on dark web monitoring site Ransomware.live on April 23, 2026, with hacker group Akira claiming to have accessed 57 gigabytes of corporate data, including employees' personal documents and clients' personal information, on or around March 13, 2026. What You Can Do After the Alkegen Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Alkegen data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Alkegen to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] ASSETMARK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martinez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSETMARK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05890-AGT (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices Defendant collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive PII and financial account information, including but not limited to names, addresses, account numbers, and Social Security numbers belonging to Defendant's clients and the clients of Defendant's business partners. On May 15, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's private information stored there. The Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. AssetMark, Inc. is wealth management platform that serves over 10,000 financial advisors and over 300,000 investor households across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Muller, Esq. VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP 1506 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (408) 215-3022 Facsimile: (408) 512-3023 E-mail: dmuller@venturahersey.com - and - Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: jjh@federmanlaw.com AT&T MOBILITY: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Suit for $1.75MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that AT&T agreed to a $1.75 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to compensate employees for missed breaks. The AT&T settlement benefits individuals employed by AT&T Mobility Services LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, AT&T Enterprises LLC (formerly AT&T Corp), AT&T Services Inc. and/or AT&T Inc. in Washington as non-exempt employees from July 11, 2022, through May 6, 2026. Former AT&T employees in Washington state claim the company violated state law by failing to compensate them for missed meal and rest periods. The plaintiffs in the wage lawsuit say this policy violated Washington law requiring employers to compensate employees for missed breaks. AT&T is a telecommunications company that offers wireless services, internet and other products. AT&T has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.75 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the AT&T settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of weeks they worked during the class period. Class members who worked a larger number of weeks will receive a larger share of the settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary. For tax purposes, payments will be considered 50% wages and 50% non-wage damages, penalties and interest. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 6, 2026. The final approval hearing for the AT&T wage lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Sept. 11, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the class action settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Class members can update their mailing address and payment preferences on the settlement website. Who's Eligible All persons employed by AT&T Mobility Services LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, AT&T Enterprises LLC (f/k/a AT&T Corp.), AT&T Services Inc. and/or AT&T Inc. in Washington as non-exempt employees from July 11, 2022, through May 6, 2026. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/06/2026 Case Name AT&T Washington wage class action lawsuit, Case No. 25-2-20318-2 SEA, in the King County Superior Court Final Hearing 09/11/2026 Settlement Website ATTWageSettlement.com Claims Administrator AT&T Settlement c/o Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 ATTWageSettlement@atticusadmin.com (800) 606-1679 Class Counsel Timothy W. Emery Patrick B. Reddy Paul Cipriani EMERY REDDY P.C. Defense Counsel James P. de Haan Raymond W. Bertrand PAUL HASTINGS LLP Jennifer D. Bucher JB LAW LLC [GN] BAKER HUGHES: Reckstin Class Suit Claims Dismissed Again -------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Reckstin Family Trust class suit claims again. A putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in which the Company has been named as a defendant, the asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the procedural history of multiple amended complaints, and the Court's ultimate dismissal of the claims against the Company. On Feb. 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in the putative securities class action filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names as defendants C3.ai, Inc. ("C3 AI"), certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and the Company and its President and CEO, who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI. It alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between Dec. 9, 2020 and Dec. 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On Feb. 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, once again reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On March 12, 2026, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. Baker Hughes Co. is a global energy technology company that provides solutions for energy and industrial customers worldwide, with offerings spanning oilfield services, equipment, digital technologies, and industrial energy efficiency. It operates in more than 120 countries, serving upstream, midstream, downstream, and industrial sectors. BATH FITTER: Bobeck Sues Over Alleged Data Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BOBECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATH FITTER FRANCHISING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01048 (M.D. Tenn., July 23, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of its employees, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Bath Fitter's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect PII/PHI information. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered as Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its employees' PII/PHI, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant who provided his PII/PHI information as part of his employment. Defendant Bath Fitter is a privately held manufacturing and retail company incorporated in Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Miles McDowell, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mmcdowell@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BAYADA HOME: Beaulieu Sues Over Leaked Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN BEAULIEU, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-CV-9283 (D.N.J., July 23, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from data security breach due to ransomware attack. On March 2, 2026, Bayada first became aware of a cybersecurity event affecting its network environment after third-party forensic specialists determined that an unauthorized actor had gained access to certain Bayada systems and copied data between February 18 and March 2, 2026. On or about July 17, 2026, more than four months after first detecting the Data breach, Defendant began sending written notice of the Data Breach by U.S. mail to affected individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable Information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the data breach, their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical diagnosis and treatment information health insurance plan information, and prescription information were compromised. Plaintiff Beaulieu was employed by the Defendant from approximately November 2018 to March 2022 and provided her private information as part of her employment. Bayada is a home health care provider that furnishes home health, hospice, personal care, and related in-home services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin P. Schrama, Esq. Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq. STARK & STARK, P.C. 100 American Metro Boulevard Hamilton, NJ 08619 Telephine: (609) 896-9060 Facsimile: (609) 895-7395 Email: mschrama@stark-stark.com scolellawalsh@stark-stark.com - and - Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 157 Columbus Ave, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (917) 716-7132 Email: elena@almeidalawgroup.com BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Fettig Sues Over Mislabeled Wemo Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JOE FETTIG and CAL KROME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-07042-SB-E (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2026) alleges violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in July 2025, the Defendant abruptly announced it was eliminating support for 27 of its Wemo products (the "Products"), reducing these expensive products to nothing more than their basic, non-smart counterparts, starting on January 31, 2026. Defendant Belkin represented its Wemo products as "Wi-Fi connected devices" intended to "make home automation accessible and easy to use for everyone." Belkin also represented that its products "work with major voice assistants," and allow consumers to "control things like lights and appliances" in their homes. Consumers, who paid premium prices for the luxury and convenience of smart appliances are left with non-smart versions of the Products that they could have purchased for far less money. Belkin has also refused to issue refunds to many consumers, including Plaintiffs. As such, the Plaintiffs and other consumers must incur out-of-pocket costs to replace the Products with other smart products to be able to use smart functionality, says the suit. Belkin International, Inc. manufactures consumer electronics and networking equipment and accessories. The Company offers cases, routers, adapters, covers, bags, hubs and docks, cables, stands, and chargers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alison M. Bernal, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 Email: alison@nshmlaw.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com BIG Y FOODS: Behjoue Sues Over Underperforming Target-Date Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANOCHEHR BEHJOUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BIG Y FOODS, INC.; BIG Y FOODS, INC. RETIREMENT PLANS ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC.; and NFP RETIREMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-13370 (D. Mass., July 22, 2026) is a securities class action seeking remedies and equitable relief for mismanagement of the Big Y Foods, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan which violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff claims that his employer Big Y Foods, Inc. delegated the investment duties of the Big Y Foods, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan to an internal body and external investment advisors who failed their fiduciary duties respecting the management or disposition of the Plan's assets. According to the complaint, the Defendant steered most of the Plan's assets into the underperforming American Century Trust target date funds without considering its poor performance history and high risk. From 2016 through 2024, the American Century TDFs failed to keep pace with peers in the same category and received sub-par Morningstar ratings. Big Y failed to monitor its co- fiduciaries and refused to produce other investment-related materials. Big Y Foods, Inc. retails food products. The Company offers deli, floral, organic, fruits, fish, cookies, cakes, bread, meat, and vegetables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Email: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 Email:jdemay@brysonpllc.com - and - Jimmy W. Mintz, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Email: jmintz@brysonpllc.com BLUE DOLPHIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molnar Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MOLNAR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE DOLPHIN POOL SERVICE, INC.; and DOUGLAS FLEISHER, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-14259 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Molnar was employed by the Defendants as a pool technician. Blue Dolphin Pool Service, Inc. is a swimming pool cleaning, maintenance, and equipment repair company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, PA 2250 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com BOEING COMPANY: Appeals Court Decertifies Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Daily Record reports that a federal appeals court on Monday, June 20, 2026 decertified a shareholder class action accusing Boeing of prioritizing profit over safety and overstating its commitment to safe aircraft, prior to the January 2024 mid-air cabin panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said shareholders led by Rhode Island's state treasurer did not provide an appropriate methodology for showing how damages could be calculated on a classwide basis. Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Boeing and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests. Class actions can allow greater recoveries at lower cost than individual lawsuits. Boeing shareholders accused the Arlington, Virginia-based company of inflating its stock price by issuing misleading statements following the crashes of two MAX planes in October 2018 and March 2019, which killed 346. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, ruled in March 2025 that shareholders who owned Boeing stock between January 7, 2021 and January 8, 2024 could sue as a group for damages. The appeals court returned the case to her. [GN] BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE: Fails to Offer Meal, Rest Breaks, Cuevas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ADAN CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26NWCV02409 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2026) is a class action lawsuit seeking relief and damages for alleged violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide required rest and meal break periods to the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees for its tactic of clocking-out employees for rest and/or meal periods that were never taken and/or were legally non-compliant, and/or otherwise falsified or altered timekeeping records. As a result, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate payroll records and failed to accurately list the correct amount of gross and/or net wages earned by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Cuevas worked as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee of the Defendant from October 2024 until on or about October 2025. Brightview Landscape is a commercial landscape maintenance company in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 Email: raffi@tapanianlaw.com BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Removes Olson Suit to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of DEVON OLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda (Case No. 26CV191143) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07308 to the proceeding. Brinker International, Inc. operates as a casual dining restaurant company. The Company offers burgers, ribs, salads, steaks, classic Italian fare, and tex-mex offerings. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 839-3317 Email: alex@wtlaw.com CARLTON SENIOR: Hipp Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Carlton Senior Living LLC. The case is captioned as Molly Hipp, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carlton Senior Living LLC, Case No. 26CV014954 (Cal. Super., June 18, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging employment law violations by the Defendant. Judge Richard C. Miadich presides over the case. An initial case management conference has been scheduled for April 20, 2027. Carlton Senior Living LLC is a private senior care company founded in 1985 and headquartered in Concord, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Dr, Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92618-4375 CLARITY TELECOM: Madsen Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Clarity Telecom, LLC. The case is captioned as Todd W. Madsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clarity Telecom, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02664-SBP (D. Colo., June 15, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the Defendant's conduct. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Clarity Telecom, LLC is a telecommunications and cloud-based communication provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mmeyer@zlk.com CLEVELAND PUB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schrank Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- TORI SCHRANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND PUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01247-NJ (E.D. Wis., July 16, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Schrank was employed by the Defendant as a kitchen staff. Cleveland Pub, Inc. operates as a bar and restaurant located in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 241-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 Email: yh@previant.com COMCAST CORP: Cannon Sues Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CANNON JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CORPORATION; THE COMCAST CORPORATION BENEFITS FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04998 (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful surcharge in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Comcast Comprehensive Health and Welfare Benefit Plan that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendants' tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, Comcast enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, says the suit. Comcast Corporation is a global media and technology company, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com COSIDLA INC: Deceives Women Into Buying Supplement, Orozco Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN OROZCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSIDLA, INC. D/B/A OLD SCHOOL LABS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-7820 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2026) arises from Defendant's deceptive and discriminatory marketing of a creatine-based dietary supplement specifically targeted to women, despite the absence of any legitimate, material, or scientifically supported gender-based differences in the product's formulation, ingredients, or gender specific efficacy. The complaint relates that OSL manufactures and sells creatine products that it markets specifically "for Women" - including the 1) Creatine Monohydrate for Women and 2) Creatine Monohydrate Collagen MADE FOR WOMEN Stick Packs (collectively, the "Creatine" or "Class Products"). OSL represents that these products are "Designed for Women," "Women-Centric," "Women-focused," and feature a "Women-Concentrated Formula." Through this marketing, OSL leads reasonable consumers to believe the Creatine contain unique formulations, ingredients, or benefits specifically tailored for women's bodies. The packaging for the Creatine also fails to disclose that there is no special "female formulation" or science supporting these representations. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs have confirmed through expert consultation, that there is no such variety or formulation of creatine that can be "designed or manufactured with a female specific concentrated formula" or in a "women-centric" manner. Plaintiff Orozco and other Class Members were misled by Gender Based Marketing Representations into believing they were purchasing products with unique formulations and benefits for women when no such differentiation exists. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known the truth, they would not have purchased the Creatine or would have purchased honestly marketed gender-neutral alternatives. OSL's deceptive conduct violates multiple consumer protection laws, including the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. OSL has been unjustly enriched by its scheme to mislead female consumers through false gender-based marketing claims, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated to halt OSL's deceptive practices, obtain restitution and damages for consumers harmed by OSL's misconduct, and ensure that OSL markets its products truthfully going forward. Plaintiff Caitlin Orozco is a citizen and resident of Illinois. Defendant Cosidla, Inc. D/B/A Old School Labs ("OSL") is a nutritional supplement manufacturer that designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, and sells a wide range of supplements throughout the United States, including creatine products marketed under the "Old School Labs" brand name. OSL sells its products through major retailers including Amazon and Walmart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (615) 921-6501 E-mail: astraus@milberg.com - and - Harper T. Segui, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: hsegui@leesegui.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. Kathryn Anne Robinson, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 421 N. Harrington St., Suite 460 Raleigh, NC 27603 E-mail: eruben@leesegui.com tpacheco@leesegui.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Misleading Emails' Suit for $14M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who received a commercial email from Costco while living in Washington state between June 2, 2021, and July 7, 2026, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to pay $14 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it sent commercial electronic mail messages with false or misleading subject lines to Washington residents. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They received at least one commercial electronic mail message sent from or on behalf of Costco between June 2, 2021, and July 7, 2026. -- They resided in Washington state at the time they received the email(s). -- They received the email(s)at an address that appears in Costco's records. Examples of qualifying emails include those with subject lines such as, "Today is the last day to access Member-Only Saving" or "Hot Buys available for 5 Days Only." If an individual received a notice about this settlement by email or mail, it means CostcoClass members who submit a valid claim form by the deadline can receive a cash payment. The exact amount each person receives depends on the number of valid claims submitted as the settlement administrator will divide the net settlement fund equally among all approved claimants after deducting attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs and a service award to the class representative. The administrator may redistribute any uncashed or undeliverable payments to claimants who cashed their initial payments or donate them to the Legal Foundation of Washington. How to claim a class action settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download a PDF claim form to print, complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Aaland v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 The claim deadline is Aug. 24, 2026. Required information's records indicate they likely qualify. However, even those who did not receive a notice may still be eligible if they meet the above requirements. How much can class members receive? Class members must provide the email address(es) where they received the Costco emails. -- Payout options -- PayPal -- Zelle -- Venmo -- Physical check $14 million settlement fund breakdown The $14,000,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $4,620,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: $16,500 (estimated) -- Service award to class representative: Up to $2,500 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 24, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 2, 2026 When is the Costco commercial email settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible class members approximately 61 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Costco sent commercial emails to Washington residents with subject lines advertising temporary or time-limited promotions but then extended those promotions beyond the stated time frame. The plaintiffs claimed this violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act. Costco denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid further litigation and expense. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment Deadline: August 24, 2026 [GN] CPAP MEDICAL: Faces Conner Suit Over Data Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------- BRETT CONNER, JUWAN OVERSHOWN, DIANE EDWARDS, STEPHEN FOLLETT, RODERIC WOODS, JOHN CRIST, CHRIS HARRIMA, and TYRONE GIBBS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CPAP MEDICAL SERVICES AND INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-011830 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., July 21, 2026) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from the failure of CPAP Medical to protect Plaintiff's sensitive health information and personally identifiable information following a cyberattack. According to the complaint, the PHI and PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members were compromised after a criminal ransomware group accessed the network systems of the Defendant and posted the information on the dark web. The data breach exposes the Plaintiffs and other patients to an increased risk of identity theft and fraud. CPAP Medical is a Florida-based provider of continuous positive airway pressure devices and other medical equipment for patients with sleep apnea, servicing active duty and retired military and their families.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CSX CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suits Over Fuel Surcharge Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2026, that it is facing a May 2007 class action lawsuits filed against CSXT and three other U.S. based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The class action lawsuits were transferred to federal court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The disclosure states that in 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying class certification. On Aug. 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. CSX Corp, based in Jacksonville, Florida, is a leading transportation company that provides rail-based freight transportation services across much of the eastern United States. It operates an extensive rail network serving major population centers, ports, and industrial markets. CV IMPORTS LLC: Thomas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CV Imports, LLC. The case is styled as Christine Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CV Imports, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06065 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CV Imports LLC -- https://www.cvlinens.com/ -- is a Textiles company, headquartered in Austin,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 324-2897 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Supplements' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that CVS Pharmacy deceptively labels its calcium and glucosamine supplements, given that the products contain a fraction of the advertised dosage per softgel or capsule. The 32-page false advertising lawsuit says that despite the front-label dosage claims for the defendant's Calcium 1200 mg + D3 and CVS Glucosamine HCI 1500 mg Chondroitin Sulfate 1200 mg supplements, consumers are unaware that they must ingest two or three softgels to obtain the advertised dosage amounts. Per the suit, consumers have "grossly overpa[id]" for the supplements, given that each product provides "only half or a third of the advertised value." According to the class action lawsuit, reasonable consumers understand CVS's front-label representations to mean that each individual softgel or capsule contains the advertised dosage of calcium, glucosamine and chondroitin, which the case says CVS conspicuously displays to "grab the consumer's attention." However, consumers must ingest two of the Calcium 1200 mg + D3 softgels, and three capsules of CVS Glucosamine HCI 1500 mg Chondroitin Sulfate 1200 mg, to achieve the advertised dosage displayed on the supplement's packaging, the case says. High-dosage supplements have enjoyed increased popularity in recent years, and the filing says that CVS is one of many companies that "scrambled" to manufacture and sell high-dosage supplements to capitalize on consumer interest. The complaint claims that rather than create an actual high-dosage supplement, CVS opted instead to make products with lower dosages, then market them with deceptive labeling and packaging claims. The case says that CVS's competitors avoid this problem by using dosage representations that are on a per-softgel or capsule basis, or by including representations with a disclaimer such as "per 4 caplets." The CVS class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States citizens who purchased the products in their respective state of citizenship for personal or household use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period and until the date class notice is disseminated. [GN] DALLY INVESTMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yeager Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA YEAGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DALLY INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; JASON DALLY; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-12427-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 16, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Yeager was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver. Dally Investment Group, LLC operates a Domino's pizza restaurant in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com - and - Matthew J. Clark, Esq. GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS CLARK & HELTON, P.C. Grand Park Centre 28 W. Adams, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 964-5600 Facsimile: (313) 964-2125 Email: Matt@unionlaw.net DATAVANT LLC: McIntosh Files Wage-and-Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------- TONI MCINTOSH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DATAVANT, LLC; CIOX HEALTH, LLC; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-2-09367-4 (Wash. Super., Pierce Cty., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in patterns and practices of wage abuse against Plaintiff and Class Members. These involved, inter alia, failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with all required meal and/or rest periods and all compensation due for all hours worked; failing to properly pay overtime wages for all hours worked; failing to timely pay all wages during their employment and upon termination of employment, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failing to allow the usage of paid sick time for qualifying absences; failing to allow the usage of paid sick time for qualifying absences; and failing to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately March 2022 to the present. Datavant, LLC develops platform for healthcare data solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (425) 521-5121 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 DELIGHT LI MANAGEMENT: Alexander Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delight LI Management LLC. The case is styled as Desteny Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delight LI Management LLC, Case No. 615668/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Contract. Delight Restaurant Group -- https://www.delightrg.com/ -- is a growth-oriented restaurant company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 Fax: (212) 481-1333 DIAMOND STATE: Boese Sues Over Concession Agreement Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA BOESE, SARAH GRAHAM, JOHN GRAHAM, SIMEON HAHN, and LORETTA MOONEY, Plaintiffs v. DIAMOND STATE PORT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, ENSTRUCTURE WILMINGTON HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ENSTRUCTURE DCT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ENSTRUCTURE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and GT USA Wilmington, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. N26C-07-224 SPL (Del. Super., July 22, 2026) is a class action suit arising from the operations default of the Concession Agreement between DSPC and GT entered on September 18, 2018 for development and operations of facilities on the Existing Port Property and the Proposed Edgemoor Port Facility Property. The complaint cites the illegal, environmental health and safety violations of the Concession Agreement due to the unsafe and hazardous dumping and storage of dangerous scrap tires on the Edgemoor Port property through the entire calendar year of 2022 and well into the calendar year of 2023. The Plaintiffs and all other taxpayers similarly situated request to declare all transactions and amendments of the Concession Agreement invalid and void ab initio, to comply with any and all Concurrent Resolution(s) requirements, to comply with the State Procurement Act and Federal Regulations for all contracts and/or Grants involving development and/or construction on the Proposed Edgemoor Port Facility Property and to comply with any and all Joint Development Plans/Acts and their Amendments and Assignments in the future. Diamond State Port Corporation is public, state-backed entity of Delaware that oversees Port operations, partnering with firms like Enstructure for the Delaware Container Terminal expansion at Edgemoor.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darrell J. Baker, Esquire, Esq. DARRELL J. BAKER, ESQUIRE, P.A. 1601 Concord Pike Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 472-4900 DIGNITY COMMUNITY: Peck Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR PECK, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE; DIGNITY HEALTH; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05902-EMC (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2026) is a California-wide class and collective action against the Defendants for failing to include standby payments in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Unfair Business Practices, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to include proper payments in the employees' regular rate of pay when calculating overtime and/or double time. Accordingly, when employees received standby pay in a workweek in which they worked overtime and/or double time, they were underpaid because their overtime rate was less than one and a half times their regular rate of pay and their double time rate was less than two times their regular rate of pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who from approximately October 2007 to April 2025 was employed by Dignity Community Care as a non-exempt hourly technician at Bakersfield Memorial Hospital. From April 2025 to present, he has been employed by Dignity Health as a non-exempt hourly technician at Mercy Southwest Hospital. Dignity Community Care is a corporation employing more than 10,000 full-time employees that owns and operates numerous healthcare facilities in California, including Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 2B South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (626) 808-4357 Facsimile: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Underpays Correction Officers, Love Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- VERRO LOVE, ISABEL VEGA, and JAMES WILLIAMS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02492 (D.D.C., July 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to timely pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act. The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant as Correction Officers at various locations and assignments at the Department of Corrections' facilities in Washington, D.C. The District of Columbia is a public agency based in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Ricksecker, Esq. Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Callie E. Dydo, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: dr@mselaborlaw.com gkm@mselaborlaw.com ced@mselaborlaw.com DOCTUSUSA INC: Acevedo Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DoctusUSA Inc. The case is styled as Mary Acevedo, on behalf of M.A., a Minor, and all others similarly situated v. DoctusUSA Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-07352-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DoctusUSA -- https://doctususa.com/ -- is a technology group specializing in healthcare and IT services, offering a wide range of solutions including medical record sorting, transcription, coding, billing, and software development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trujillo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER TRUJILLO, on behalf of her minor child A.T., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOCTUSUSA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07353 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (together, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class members from unauthorized access to its information systems and the compromise and unauthorized disclosure of that private information. The Defendant provides medical coding and revenue cycle management services to numerous clients. In order to obtain medical services from Defendant's clients, the Plaintiff and other former and current patients of the clients are required to entrust Defendant with Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. According to the complaint, the notorious cybercriminal group "DeadLock" claimed responsibility for a cyber-attack against Defendant. The Defendant could have prevented this data breach by implementing reasonable, expected, and industry standard data security measures. Instead, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement these measures to safeguard the Private Information Plaintiff and Class members indirectly provided to Defendant. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and declaratory judgment. She seeks an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief over Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive Private Information. DoctusUSA Inc. provides medical coding and revenue cycle management services to clients across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com DOCTUSUSA INC: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Schifani Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS SCHIFANI, on behalf of his minor child C.S., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOCTUSUSA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-07439 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information (collectively "Private Information") about its current and former customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. In March 4, 2026, notorious cybercriminal group, "DeadLock," revealed that it had accessed and stolen data from Defendant's systems. However, upon information and belief, the data breach was not discovered until June 2026. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and his minor child are data breach victims. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of his minor child C.S., and all others harmed by Defendant's alleged misconduct. DoctusUSA Inc. is a healthcare management company that specializes in medical records management, document processing, and healthcare documentation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com DRIVE & SHINE: Fralish Files Class Suit Over TCPA Breach -------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Drive & Shine, Inc. The case is captioned John Fralish, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Drive & Shine, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00870-SJF (N.D. Ind., June 16, 2026). The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Scott J. Frankel. Drive & Shine, Inc. is a family-owned automotive care provider offering car washes, express interior cleanings, full detailing, and oil changes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Darr, Esq. DARR LAW LLC 1391 W 5th Ave Ste 313 Columbus, OH 43212 Telephone: (614) 465-3277 E-mail: alex@darr.law The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S LaSalle St. Ste 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 E-mail: jariley@duanemorris.com DRIVE SALLY: Faces Suit Over Misleading Vehicle Rental Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Drive Sally has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the vehicle rental company misleadingly touts that drivers can rent cars at a fixed, all-inclusive weekly rate while systematically charging more than the advertised price. The 70-page false advertising lawsuit claims that although Drive Sally assures consumers, including ride-share drivers, that its vehicle rental prices are "all-inclusive" and include "no hidden fees," the company misrepresents the costs and terms of its rental services, deliberately withholding key information until a driver has already "practically and financially" committed to a rental agreement. According to the complaint, Drive Sally intentionally advertises its "Uber-ready" vehicle rentals to "vulnerable" rideshare drivers who rely on continual access to a vehicle for their primary income. Drive Sally further represents that one weekly payment covers the rental, liability insurance, and maintenance, the suit states. However, the class action lawsuit alleges that Drive Sally does not present drivers with the full terms and conditions of its rental agreements before they commit to a rental, pay a deposit, and make an appointment to pick up the car. Instead, the complaint charges, Drive Sally provides drivers with an incomplete order form, induces them to execute a rental agreement, and uses "coercive business practices" to extract additional revenue via weekly fees for maintenance, liability insurance, property damage, ancillary insurance coverage, and other miscellaneous charges that are not disclosed or are otherwise improperly applied. The filing says that drivers have also reported additional undisclosed Drive Sally charges, such as fees for early termination, tolls, tickets, late payment, and vehicle reactivation, among others. According to the case, after a rental agreement has been executed, Drive Sally will then use "threatening" billing practices, e.g., sending drivers harassing text messages demanding payment of undisclosed fees or rate increases. The suit says that when a driver is unable to pay the excessive, undisclosed fees, Drive Sally will deactivate their vehicle via a remote "kill-switch," even when a car is actively being driven. To make matters worse, the lawsuit continues, Drive Sally, which represents that its vehicles are "meticulously" maintained, often provides drivers with cars that are poorly maintained, unsafe, and unfit to use for ridesharing services such as Uber or Lyft. The complaint relays that drivers have complained that Drive Sally's vehicles have been equipped with faulty transmissions, inexplicable smells, and more. The plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement with Drive Sally to rent a 2023 Kia Forte for $389 per week, including maintenance and insurance. However, one month into the rental agreement, the suit says, Drive Sally raised its rates and "incessantly" texted the plaintiff to sign the new contract, bringing the woman's weekly cost to $434. In one instance, Drive Sally abruptly deactivated the plaintiff's rental car while she was driving with a passenger in the vehicle, citing non-payment, the complaint states. After payment was received, the suit alleges, Drive Sally unilaterally terminated the plaintiff's rental agreement the next day without explanation, apparently in violation of its own terms, charged her an additional $400 early termination fee, and did not issue a refund for her initial deposit. The Drive Sally class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who entered into a rental agreement with Drive Sally. [GN] DRUGS MADE IN AMERICA: M&A Probes Merger With Power Analytics ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Drugs Made In America Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: DMAA) related to its merger with Power Analytics Global Corp. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/drugs-made-in-america-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] EPIC SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Investigates "No-Poach" Agreements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Technicians, consultants, specialists or other technical employees who worked with Epic Systems' electronic health records platforms any time since 2014, either for Epic itself or one of its clients. Even if you never worked for Epic System, your pay may have been suppressed if you work as a technician, consultant, or specialist regarding Epic's EHR software or platforms. What's Going On? Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether Epic Systems and its clients entered into illegal "no-poach" agreements whereby they agreed not to solicit each other's technical employees, potentially suppressing workers' wages and reducing opportunities. If so, it's possible a lawsuit could be filed. How Could a Lawsuit Help? A lawsuit could help workers recover money for their damages, such as artificially suppressed wages, and prevent their employers from enforcing any anticompetitive agreements. What You Can Do If you worked for Epic or one of its clients as a technician or specialist on Epic's electronic health records platforms (such as MyChart) any time since 2014, fill out the form on this page to help the investigation. Even if you never worked for Epic Systems, your pay may have been impacted. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of technical workers who specialize in Epic Systems' electronic health records platforms, including EHR specialists who have not worked for Epic Systems directly. Specifically, they believe Epic Systems and its healthcare provider and consultant clients may have entered into anticompetitive employee non-solicitation agreements, commonly called "no-poach" agreements, wherein they agreed not to recruit, solicit or hire each other's software employees. No-poach agreements often have the effect of restricting competition for specialized workers, which can lead to lower wages, reduced employment opportunities and fewer benefits. As part of their investigation, the attorneys now want to speak with anyone who, since 2014: -- Worked for one of Epic's clients as a technician, consultant or other specialist on Epic's electronic health records platforms; or -- Worked for Epic as a technical worker (such as a computer programmer or software technician) on its electronic health records platforms. How Could a No-Poach Deal Suppress Your Pay? A no-poach agreement is essentially an agreement between companies, whether as a written contract or an informal understanding, not to compete for each other's employees, which essentially eliminates the need for employers to offer attractive salaries and benefits in order to keep their best employees. For instance, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint and settlement with six tech firms—Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel, Intuit and Pixar—claiming they deprived their workers of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities by entering into non-solicitation agreements. According to the DOJ, the no-poach agreements prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other's highly skilled employees. The DOJ noted that tech employees with specialized skills or training are in high demand, and companies often directly recruit these types of workers through "cold calling." According to the DOJ, the six tech firms' agreements to not cold call each other's employees interfered with the competitive process through which these workers could otherwise obtain better opportunities and higher pay. The DOJ settlement prohibited the companies from entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that prevented them from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting or otherwise competing for employees. How Could a Lawsuit Help Epic Software Specialists? If filed and successful, a lawsuit could help affected workers recover money for any damages they may have experienced as a result of anticompetitive agreements between Epic and its clients. For instance, workers may be able to recover money for suppressed pay and reduced career opportunities. A lawsuit could also prohibit Epic and its clients from entering into or enforcing any non-solicitation agreement that restricts competition among their employees. For example, Papa John's reached a $5 million settlement in 2025 to resolve a lawsuit that claimed the pizza chain's franchise agreements contained illegal no-poach clauses that prevented franchisees from hiring each other's employees. The settlement provided payments to affected workers and required Papa John's to provide antitrust compliance training for executives and notify franchisees of its commitment not to enforce no-poach agreements. What You Can Do After you get in touch, an attorney or legal representative may reach out to you directly to ask you some questions and explain how you may be able to help get a lawsuit started. It costs nothing to fill out the form and speak with someone, and you're not obligated to take legal action. [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Acosta Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Acosta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-07349 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ERNST & YOUNG LLP: Clarke Files Suit in W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ernst & Young LLP. The case is styled as Marian Clarke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ernst & Young LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-06134 (W.D.N.Y., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Ernst & Young LLP (EY) -- https://www.ey.com/en_us/ -- provides consulting, assurance, tax and transaction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com ERNST & YOUNG: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Alexei Alexis, writing for CFO Dive, reports that Ernst & Young is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging the Big Four accounting firm failed to protect sensitive data, including financial and tax information, exposed in a cybersecurity incident earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed Monday, July 20, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that affected individuals face risks such as identity theft and tax fraud. It seeks class certification as well as monetary relief for those impacted. "E&Y is a sophisticated organization with the resources to deploy robust cybersecurity protocols," the complaint says, arguing that the firm "knew, or should have known" that such measures were necessary to protect sensitive data. Dive Insight: The legal action follows EY's recent disclosure that an unauthorized third party accessed an IT service management platform used by the firm's technology personnel. The firm said it identified "anomalous activity" on the platform on April 23 and determined that an unauthorized party had accessed the system between March 28 and April 12, downloading documents associated with "a number" of EY clients. The platform contained support tickets that could include attachments with client tax information, according to EY's notification. The firm said it launched an investigation, worked with an independent cybersecurity firm and took steps to contain the incident and prevent further unauthorized access. EY said in its notification that it was not aware of any misuse of affected information and that the firm had secured its systems. The firm offered eligible individuals 24 months of identity monitoring and restoration services through Experian. The complaint alleges EY failed to meet its obligations to protect client information despite handling highly sensitive financial data as part of its tax and professional services businesses. "Only E&Y was in the position to ensure that its systems and protocols were sufficient to protect the PII and financial and tax information that Plaintiff and Class Members had entrusted to it," the lawsuit states. The plaintiff, Illinois resident Markishi Wyatt, claims that her information was compromised in the breach. Wyatt is seeking to represent all affected U.S. individuals. While the total number is not currently known, it is estimated to be in the tens or hundreds of thousands given EY's global presence, according to the lawsuit. EY did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] ERNST & YOUNG: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hughes Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANTEL HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06107 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including financial and tax information, stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that as one of the "Big Four" accounting and consulting firms, the Defendant provides assurance, tax, consulting and advisory services to businesses globally. The firm employs over 400,000 people across more than 150 countries. Plaintiff's information was stored with E&Y as a result of her dealings with E&Y. On July 13, 2026, E&Y notified its clients that an unauthorized third party breached a support ticket platform used by its IT staff, downloading PII including documents containing personal information tied to individuals' investment holdings with EY's institutional clients, along with financial and other information used in preparing tax filings. As a result, Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff was injured by the material risk to future harm she will suffer based on E&Y's breach; this risk is imminent and substantial because Plaintiff's data has been exposed in the breach, the data involved, including Social Security numbers and financial information, is highly sensitive and presents a high risk of identity theft or fraud; and it is likely, given E&Y's clientele, that some of the Class' information that has been exposed has already been misused, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members, hence, seek an Order of the Court requiring E&Y to refund, disgorge, and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by E&Y from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Plaintiff Shantel Hughes is a resident and citizen of Illinois, residing in Richmond, Virginia and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") is a multinational professional services network headquartered in London, England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 5544 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33707 Telephone: (917) 596-3283 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ERNST & YOUNG: Fails to Secure Private Info, Martinez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06102 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On July 13, 2026, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it was a victim of a cyberattack between March 28, 2026, and April 12, 2026. The Data Breach compromised the following types of Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members: personal information and financial information used to prepare tax filings. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Fernando Martinez is a citizen and resident of Miami, Florida. Defendant Ernst & Young LLP is an international accounting and tax firm that provides a wide range of financial services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ERNST & YOUNG: Wyatt Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------------ Markishi Wyatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-06108 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including financial and tax information, stored within Defendant's information network. The Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use the Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII and financial and tax information. Between March 28, 2026 and April 12, 2026, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with the Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial and tax information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII and financial and tax information of Plaintiff and Clas Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. The Defendant is a multinational professional services network initially headquartered in London, England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC RxR Plaza 626 RexCorp Plaza, Suite 605 Uniondale, NY 11556 Phone: (929) 709-149 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com EXACT SCIENCES: Cano Sues Over Private Data Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- JEANNETTE CANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-657 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On July 15, 2026, a dark web monitoring site detected that threat actor group ShinyHunters had claimed a data breach of Defendant's systems which compromised the names, medical information, and health insurance information of the Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Cano is a resident of California who submitted her private information to the Defendant as part of its standard business practices and in connection with the services it provides. She suffered stress and anxiety following a significant uptick in spam calls, messages, and emails due to the cyber attack, says the suit. Exact Sciences is a molecular diagnostics company that develops and processes physician-ordered testing products for various kinds of cancer headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com - and - Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com EXPRESS SERVICE: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Trujillo Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPRESS SERVICE TRANSPORT, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1–20, Case No. 26CU032302C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on July 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04143-BTM-AHG. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because this is a class action case alleging a multi-year class and multiple types of wage and hour damages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Watkins, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. THE WATKINS FIRM, APC 9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 130 San Diego, CA 92131 Phone (858) 535-1511 Facsimile: (858) 535-1581 Email: sresendes@watkinsfirm.com FAIR HARBOR: Thomas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Harbor Clothing PBC. The case is styled as Christine Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fair Harbor Clothing PBC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06139 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fair Harbor -- https://www.fairharborclothing.com/ -- makes the world's most comfortable and versatile sustainable beachwear and lifestyle clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 324-2897 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com FASHION NOVA: Medina TCPA Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Medina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-02734 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07025-PA-AJR to the proceeding. The suit is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Percy Anderson and referred to Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. Fashion Nova, LLC is an American fast-fashion retail company founded by Richard Saghian in 2006.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Telephone: (305) 506-4746 E-mail: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP 71 South Wacker Drive 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-4956 Facsimile: (312) 767-9192 E-mail: meisen@beneschlaw.com - and - Grace McElroy, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-5217 Telephone: (628) 295-2028 E-mail: gmcelroy@beneschlaw.com FELLOWS HYMOWITZ: Underpays Medical Paralegal, Cook Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SHERI ANN COOK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FELLOWS HYMOWITZ RICE PLLC, ROBERT FELLOWS, STEVEN HYMOWITZ, and MATTHEW RICE, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-06063 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was first employed by the Defendants in October 12, 2021 until May 5, 2022 when she separated from employment with the firm. She began working for the Defendants again when she was rehired in or around September 11, 2024, as a Medical Malpractice Paralegal until her termination on May 16, 2025. Fellows Hymowitz Rice PLLC is a personal injury law firm in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (917) 807-7819 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc FIESTA INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, McQuinn Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE MCQUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIESTA INSURANCE FRANCHISE CORPORATION d/b/a FIESTA INSURANCE, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02176 (D. Nev., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the highly sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and the Class. The complaint relates that as a condition of obtaining insurance and tax-preparation services from Defendant, consumers must entrust Defendant with a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"), which Defendant then stores on its computer systems. But Defendant lost control of that Private Information when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected network in a data breach on June 9, 2026. The Defendant admitted the incident in a notice dated July 13, 2026. The complaint notes that the Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the increase in spam, suggesting that her Private Information has been stolen and is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Data Breach has caused Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that Defendant has still not fully informed her of key details about the Data Breach's occurrence, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Michelle McQuinn is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Fiesta Insurance Franchise Corporation d/b/a Fiesta Insurance operates as a multi-state franchise network, brokering insurance policies from third-party carriers and, through its local storefronts, providing tax-preparation services directly to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Monique N. Rodriguez, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Gregory Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gmullens@stranchlaw.com FINANCIAL GROUP: Brazier Sues Over Leaked Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BRAZIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00670 (W.D. Wis., July 23, 2026) is a class action arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of its clients, including Plaintiff. On July 15, 2026, the Defendant disclosed in a post on its website that it experienced a cybersecurity incident, which exfiltrated its computer systems and compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Due to the data breach, the Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information, loss or diminished value of their Private Information and lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Plaintiff Brazier is a resident of Madisonville, Kentucky and a victim of the data security breach. Defendant Financial Group, Inc. operates as an insurance company. The Company provides illness, hospitalization, nursing, death, pension, educational, and other life insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com FIRST INTERSTATE: Drell Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- CALLIE DRELL, Individually and on behalf of THE FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC. 401(K) PLAN, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC. and the FIRST INTERSTATE BANCSYSTEM, INC. BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. CV-26-62-BLG-TJC (D. Mont., July 18, 2026) is a class action to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The complaint relates that as fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. However, Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund (the "AC TDF") for more than nine years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by tens of millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, asserts the complaint. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, and in particular Defendants' inclusion of the AC TDF, Plaintiff was subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses, says the suit. The Plaintiff has standing to bring this action on behalf of the Plan because she participated in the Plan and was injured by Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the complaint. Plaintiff is entitled to receive benefits in the amount of the difference between the value of her account currently, or as of the time her account was distributed, and what her account is or would have been worth, but for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, it adds. Plaintiff Callie Drell is a Plan participant as defined by ERISA. At relevant times during the Class Period, Plaintiff was invested in the AC TDF series. Defendants control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan. The Defendants have fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the assets of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 2224 Montana Ave. Billings, MT 59101 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com FLEXIBLE FINANCE: Turner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flexible Finance Inc. The case is styled as Taleah Gray Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flexible Finance Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06078 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Flexible Finance, Inc. -- https://getflex.com/ -- provides software solutions. The Company develops and manages flexible bill payments and rental solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (917) 628-5842 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com FLY-E GROUP: Faces Securities Class, Derivative Actions in E.D.N.Y ------------------------------------------------------------------ Fly-E Group, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is currently facing actions over its SEC filings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On Sept. 8, 2025, a federal securities class action was filed by plaintiff Dino Kurt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the company, its chief executive officer, Zhou Ou, and its former chief financial officer, Shiwen Feng. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 during a class period spanning from July 15, 2025, to Aug. 14, 2025. It claims that defendants made materially false and misleading positive statements about revenue growth, brand reputation, and business expansion, while concealing or minimizing material adverse facts concerning the safety of the company's lithium battery and inadequate forecasting processes, which were already taking a material toll on E-vehicle sales revenue. The plaintiff alleges that when the company filed a Form NT 10-Q on Aug. 14, 2025, it disclosed a 32% decrease in net revenues, primarily driven by a decline in total units sold, which it attributed to recent lithium-battery accidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters. Following this disclosure, the price of the company's common stock allegedly declined by about 87% in a single day, resulting in economic loss for the plaintiff and the putative class. The relief sought includes a determination that the matter may proceed as a class action, an order requiring defendants to pay damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class, and an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, along with reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs, with the monetary damages sought certified to be in excess of $150,000. On May 22, 2026, the lead plaintiff in the class action filed an Amended Complaint in the Eastern District of New York. The company's response to the Amended Complaint is due on Aug. 14, 2026. Additionally, the company disclosed that on Oct. 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the Eastern District of New York. This action is captioned "Flynn v. Ou et al.," No. 1:25-cv-06036. A separate shareholder derivative action, captioned "Shah v. Ou et al.," was also filed based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the securities class action. The Flynn and the Shah actions seek damages from the current and former directors and officers and request an order directing the company and those current and former directors and officers to take actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures. On Dec. 9, 2025, the court consolidated the two actions into a single consolidated action captioned "In re Fly-E Group, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation," No. 1:25-cv-06036 and appointed co-lead counsel. The current and former director and officer defendants dispute the allegations in the derivative complaints and intend to vigorously defend against all claims. Fly-E Group, Inc. is a China-based provider of electric mobility products, including e-bikes and e-scooters, which it markets to consumers and distributors in domestic and international markets. It focuses on lithium-battery-powered vehicles and related components aimed at the urban micro-mobility and last-mile transportation segments. FUNDMYBIZ.COM INC: Vargas Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FundmyBiz.com Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alex Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FundmyBiz.com Inc., John Dicanio, Adam Schwartz and all other related entities and individuals, Case No. 615684/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Torts (Wage and Hour). Fund My Biz -- https://fundmybiz.com/ -- is a financial services company and online merchant cash advance platform that provides fast small business funding, including startup loans, lines of credit, and equipment financing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com FURMAN FOODS: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Furman Foods Inc., doing business as Furmano's, has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the canned goods manufacturer failed to protect sensitive information in its care from an October 2024 data breach. The Furmano's class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 3, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially compromised in the October 2024 data breach affecting Furmano's, including all who received notice of the incident. The court-approved website for the Furmano's class action settlement can be found at FurmanFoodsDataSettlement.com. Furmano's settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $300 for documented "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses incurred between October 10, 2024 and September 30, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers costs for credit reports, credit monitoring services, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, postage, and more. Additionally, class members can submit a claim for reimbursement of up to five hours of lost time spent responding to the incident, at a rate of $20 per hour. This benefit covers activities such as changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity, and researching the Furmano's data breach. Claims for lost time will be included toward the $300 cap for out-of-pocket losses. Class members can also file a claim form to receive up to $2,000 for documented "extraordinary" losses from identity theft or fraud incurred between October 10, 2024 and September 30, 2026 due to the Furmano's data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive a payment for out-of-pocket expenses and/or identity theft- and fraud-related losses. In lieu of any of the foregoing payouts, class members can submit a claim form to receive a $35 cash payment, with no proof required. To submit a Furmano's settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID found on their copy of the settlement notice and their last name. All Furmano's claim forms must be submitted by September 30, 2026. Lastly, all class members can enroll in two years of one-bureau credit monitoring, which includes dark web scanning and identity theft insurance. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Furmano's settlement following a hearing to be scheduled at a later date. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Furmano's class action lawsuit alleged that the canned food and condiment manufacturer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information on its systems from a targeted October 2024 cyberattack. Court documents state that the private information that may have been impacted by the incident included names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Milan Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors Company, et al. The case is styled as Keir Milan, all others similarly situated v. General Motors Company, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-07939 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Marie Meyers, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 248-8478 Fax: (619) 255-1515 Email: mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com GOLI NUTRITION: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goli Nutrition, Inc. The case is styled as Joanna Hernandez, Fernando Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goli Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 26STCV22555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2026). Goli Nutrition -- https://goli.com/ -- provides dietary supplements in gummy form, including apple cider vinegar, ashwagandha, probiotics, sleep support, and multivitamin options.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Ramos Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rose Ramos, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, Case No. 30-2026-01572380-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on July 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01929. On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which abandons all class allegations and alleges the following two causes of action against Goodwill solely on Plaintiff's behalf: adverse action violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and California Civil Code Violations under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Sinclair, Esq. Edson K. McClellan, Esq. Rachel K. Iida, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Email: bsinclair@rutan.com emcclellan@rutan.com riida@rutan.com GREENE COUNTY, NY: Mistretta Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greene County. The case is styled as Cira Mistretta, Michael Guglielmo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Greene County, New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-01398-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., July 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Greene County -- https://greenecountyny.gov/ -- is a county located in the U.S. state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. Jenna C. Smith, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street-12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 434-0600 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com jsmith@bsfllp.com - and - Jack Wilson, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 749-8238 Fax: (914) 749-8300 Email: jwilson@bsfllp.com GROUPON INC: Kolici Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- ENDRIT KOLICI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUPON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01820 (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of daily life. Groupon, Inc. is an e-commerce company based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW PA 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1301 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 246 Shore Court Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, FL 33308 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com HANDSHAKE AI: Boggs Sues to Recover Unpaid Regular and OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN BOGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYDER CORP. d/b/a HANDSHAKE, and HANDSHAKE AI SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-07498 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and other statutes. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class members were denied minimum wages, overtime pay, meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business expenses, and timely payment of all wages owed for they were classified as independent contractors. Plaintiff Boggs performed work for Handshake AI and was classified as an independent contractor. Handshake AI Solutions, LLC is a division of Defendant Stryder Corp. d/b/a Handshake, a career networking platform that has built partnerships with approximately 1,500 universities in the United States and Europe and maintains a network of approximately 18 million students and alumni, including 3 million graduate-level individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Thomas Bibby, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (610) 273-8272 Email: tbibby@brysonpllc.com HDR GLOBAL: BKX Services Sues Over Fraudulent Insider Trading ------------------------------------------------------------- BKX SERVICES INC. and DAVID NAMDAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HDR GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, ABS GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, 100X HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHINE EFFORT INC LIMITED, HDR GLOBAL SERVICES (BERMUDA) LIMITED, ARTHUR HAYES, SAMUEL REED, BENJAMIN DELO, and GREGORY DWYER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-06259 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2026) is a class action complaint involving theft of bitcoin, a kind of digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin was launched in 2009 as the world's first decentralized crypto-asset and is the largest and most popular crypto-asset to date. According to the complaint, Defendant BitMEX committed fraudulent omissions regarding the nature and operations of the Insider Trading Desk, artificially manipulated the price of bitcoin on U.S.-based third-party reference exchanges and and used secret, anonymous accounts to trade against BitMEX customers. BKX Services purchased bitcoin derivative products on BitMEX's platform at an artificially manipulated price, which resulted to loss of a property and other damages on the part of BKX. Due to the misconduct, Plaintiff BKX Services and Class Members lost a bitcoin and BitMEX unlawfully retained possession of the bitcoin, says the suit. BitMEX is a cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform. The Company offers trading, investment, financing in different currencies. BitMEX serves clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest, Esq. Ryan Gaddis, Esq. Adrienne Allen, Esq. Ariana Noshari, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 5800 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com rgaddis@burnscharest.com aallen@burnscharest.com anoshari@burnscharest.com - and - Tyler Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN LAW PLLC 1100 Brickell Avenue, Suite 501S Miami, FL 33130 Email: Tyler@yagmanlaw.com HEART CARE: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Heart Care Centers of Illinois data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Heart Care Centers of Illinois data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Heart Care Centers of Illinois Security Incident: What Happened? Heart Care Centers of Illinois, a group of cardiovascular care practices in the greater Chicago area, has reported a data breach that may have impacted sensitive information. According to a notice posted to its website, on January 15, 2026, while investigating an unsuccessful phishing attempt, Heart Care Centers of Illinois discovered historical suspicious account activity in connection with an employee email account. Following an investigation with third-party forensics specialists, the company determined on June 11, 2026 that the unauthorized actor potentially accessed certain protected information of its patients and employees, including names, mailing addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license and state identification numbers, payment card information, financial account information and passport numbers. Additionally, the Heart Care Centers of Illinois data breach may have also affected medical information, such as treatments, conditions and diagnoses, prescription information, health insurance information, provider information and telephone and fax numbers. Information affected varied by individual. The company began mailing notification letters to potentially affected individuals on July 10, 2026, the total number of which has not been publicly disclosed. What You Can Do After the Heart Care Centers of Illinois Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Heart Care Centers of Illinois data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Heart Care Centers of Illinois to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] HOUSE OF LORETO: Faces Suit Over Nursing Home's Staffing, Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Abreanna Blose, writing for Canton Repository, reports that the former operators of the House of Loreto nursing home are facing a potential class-action lawsuit amid allegations of higher fees and a decline in care before the facility's state-ordered closure earlier this year. The plaintiff in the case is the executor of the estate of a former deceased resident and has retained counsel to represent themselves and other residents and families. A copy of the complaint, filed in Stark County Common Pleas Court July 17, was provided by filing attorney Plakas Mannos of Canton. The lawsuit aims to represent all residents who lived at the House of Loreto between February 2025 and its closure in early 2026. The class is expected to contain no more than 100 members, including estates of the deceased, according to the filing. The defendants, Bharat Thakkar and Parth Thakkar of Hari Group LLC, could not immediately be reached for comment on July 20. The lawsuit also lists the Aging with Care Foundation Inc., a non-profit registered to Parth, as a defendant. The filing does not list an attorney for the Thakkars, though the firm representing the group in a state lawsuit also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. House of Loreto lawsuit "Hari Group continued to accept payments from residents and their families, including the increased monthly payments, while failing to provide the staffing, care, services, and benefits for which those payments were made," the complaint said. Those residents, the complaint alleges, were subject to facility-wide staffing and care deficiencies. Key allegations include the following: -- Increased monthly rates by over $1,000 to $7,000 -- A failed promise of enhanced care -- Reduced staffing, leadership and services -- Eliminated electronic medical records -- Failure maintain adequate pharmacy and quality-assurance systems -- A decrease in residents' overall quality of life Although Hari Group LLC publicly promised to preserve the facility's legacy, the complaint alleges the new owners failed to do so. ". . . Hari Group continued to operate under the House of Loreto name and benefit from the decades of trust, reputation, and goodwill established by the Congregation of the Divine Spirit," the filing said. Class action against House of Loreto The filing seeks alleges claims of breach of contract, consumer-protection violations and violations of Ohio nursing home patients' bill of rights. According to the complaint, the plaintiff are seeking more $25,000, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and other relief the court deems appropriate. "The House of Loreto was a well-regarded institution in the Canton community for decades and was entrusted with caring for some of our community's most vulnerable members," attorney Lee Plakas of Plakas Mannos wrote in a statement. "What occurred following the change in ownership represents a profound and troubling departure from that legacy. This class action seeks justice for those affected, meaningful accountability for what occurred, and compensation for residents who did not receive what they were promised." "As both a registered nurse and an attorney, I am deeply concerned by what our investigation into the House of Loreto has uncovered," Garrett Loyd of Plakas Mannos wrote in a statement. "Nursing home residents are especially vulnerable and often cannot easily relocate or advocate for themselves when conditions deteriorate, leaving them dependent on the facility to protect their health, safety, and dignity." [GN] HR-REVOLUTION LLC: Shelton Sues Over Illegal Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN SHELTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. HR-REVOLUTION LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-08674 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2026) is class action against Travel + Leisure pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On April 7, 2026, the Plaintiff applied for employment with Copperfield Health and Rehab, in North Carolina. Accordingly, a written agreement addressing the production of consumer reports exists between Defendant and Copperfield which requires Defendant to produce reports that comply with the FCRA. After a series of interviews, Plaintiff was offered employment in Copperfield on April 10. On April 14, 2026, the Plaintiff was told in front of her orientation class that she needed to leave the facility after Copperfield received a copy of the Consumer Report produced by Defendant. The Plaintiff attempted to contest the adverse action that day and was told that the report would only go back seven years, but Defendant's report goes beyond seven years. The Consumer Report produced by Defendant contains both patent and materially misleading inaccuracies. The Plaintiff's Consumer Report inaccurately lists the same criminal charges multiple Listing the same criminal charges multiple times in the Consumer Report is materially misleading in that it erroneously exaggerates Plaintiff’s limited criminal history, the suit says. The Defendant produces background screening and other consumer reports for end users for employment purposes for a fee. The consumer reports produced by Defendant contain items which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Iglody, Esq. IGLODY LAW PLLC 2580 St Rose Pkwy #330 Henderson, NV 89074 Telephone: (702) 425-5366 E-mail: lee@iglody.com - and - Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 111 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1700 - 218 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 E-mail: ilozo@sirillp.com INTERCEPT MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MONZER ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE INTERCEPT MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02508-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in its website www.theintercept.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that 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 and page titles reflecting in human-readable terms what users are reading on the Website, and transmits those contents to multiple distinct third-party entities for those third parties' independent commercial use. During his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive personal subject matter, including pages addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict, the conduct of the United States government in connection with that conflict, federal immigration enforcement, and federal law-enforcement conduct against political protesters, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of his communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was reading, the page titles identifying in plain English the subject matter of those pages, the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation paths, and persistent identifiers tying those communications to Plaintiff across browsing sessions. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices, did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being transmitted to the third parties operating the Trackers, and did not consent to the use or commercial exploitation of those contents by Defendant or by the third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class, hence, seek restitution and disgorgement of all amounts by which Defendant was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's and Class Members' expense. Plaintiff MONZER ERAKAT was in California when he visited the Website on June 3, 2026. Defendant THE INTERCEPT MEDIA, INC. owns, operates, and controls the Website and is responsible for the configuration, embedding, and deployment of the tracking technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (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 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com INTERCEPT MEDIA: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Erakat Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONZER ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE INTERCEPT MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-01208 (E.D. Cal., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website, www.theintercept.com that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs and page titles reflecting in human-readable terms what users are reading on the Website, and transmits those contents to multiple distinct third-party entities for those third parties' independent commercial use. During his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages addressing sensitive personal subject matter, including pages addressing the Israel-Palestine conflict, the conduct of the United States government in connection with that conflict, federal immigration enforcement, and federal law-enforcement conduct against political protesters, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting third parties to intercept the contents of his communications and to associate those contents with persistent, cross-session user identifiers. Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was reading, the page titles identifying in plain English the subject matter of those pages, the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation paths, and persistent identifiers tying those communications to Plaintiff across browsing sessions. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices, did not consent to the contents of their communications with the Website being transmitted to the third parties operating the Trackers, and did not consent to the use or commercial exploitation of those contents by Defendant or by the third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Class seek restitution and disgorgement of all amounts by which Defendant was unjustly enriched at Plaintiff's and Class Members' expense. Plaintiff MONZER ERAKAT was in California when he visited the Website on June 3, 2026. Defendant THE INTERCEPT MEDIA, INC. owns, operates, and controls the Website and is responsible for the configuration, embedding, and deployment of the tracking technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (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 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com IQ CREDIT: Agrees to Settle Overdraft Fees' Suit for $1-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former account holders whom iQ Credit Union charged certain overdraft fees or NSF fees between Dec. 12, 2018 and July 31, 2023, may be eligible to receive a cash payment or account credit from a class action settlement. iQ Credit Union agreed to pay more than $1 million in cash and waived fees to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the credit union improperly charged overdraft fees on signature-based debit card transactions and nonsufficient funds fees on multiple presentments of the same item. Who are the class members? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a current or former account holder whom iQ Credit Union charged at least one of the following fees between Dec. 12, 2018 and July 31, 2023: -- An overdraft fee on a signature-based debit card transaction that was authorized when their account had sufficient funds and settled in the authorized amount (referred to as APSN fees) -- A nonsufficient funds fee on the second or third presentment of an item that a merchant previously returned for insufficient funds (referred to as retry fees) -- They received a postcard or email notice of the settlement. How much are settlement payments? -- Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine the payment amount by the amount of qualifying fees paid. -- Debt forgiveness: Former account holders whom iQ assessed qualifying fees but who did not pay them when the credit union closed their account will no longer owe the fees. iQ will forgive a total of $58,947 qualifying fees. -- Cease future fees: iQ Credit Union agreed to stop assessing qualifying ASPN and retry fees for no less than three years from the settlement final approval date. This benefit has an estimated value of $195,000 No claim form required Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive a settlement payment. Payout options -- Current account holders will receive a credit to their iQ Credit Union account -- Former account holders will receive a check mailed to their last known address. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $334,649 plus reimbursement of expenses -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of $750,000 cash settlement fund -- Debt forgiveness: $58,947 -- Fee practice changes for at least three years: Valued at $195,000 Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: Aug. 19, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 25, 2026 When is the iQ Credit Union overdraft fee settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments, account credits and debt forgiveness to eligible class members within 65 days of the final approval date. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed iQ Credit Union improperly charged overdraft fees on certain debit card transactions and nonsufficient funds fees on multiple presentments of the same item. The plaintiff alleged these practices violated account agreements and state law. iQ Credit Union denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation and a possible trial. [GN] JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Prepares to Settle Overpaid 2023 Property Taxes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ilana Arougheti, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that faced with a class action lawsuit from hundreds of thousands of homeowners who allegedly overpaid on their 2023 property taxes, the Jackson County Legislature is prepared to settle -- and they're looking to use a recently passed tax credit program in order to do so. Under the proposed settlement, residents will instead be reimbursed by a new tax policy codified into law earlier this month: a series of credits on their property tax bills over the next three years, starting later in 2026. The credits would be distributed to those whose property values rose by more than 15% in 2023, which aligns with both the new county law and with a July 4 executive order directing the county to implement the tax program. The Legislature unanimously passed a Memorandum of Understanding Monday, July 20, which authorized County Counselor Bryan Covinsky to offer the proposed settlement. If both legal teams come to an agreement, they can ask a Jackson County judge to approve a settlement, ending the lawsuit before a trial could take place. The MOU indicates that the county's legal team has already negotiated with the class action lawyers, bringing the county one step closer to putting the massive lawsuit to bed. The lawsuit class is represented by a trio of lawyers from Humphrey, Farrington and McClain, a firm based in Independence. Attorney Jonathan Soper told The Star that the class action settlement would be "historic" if approved by the court. "We think it's great for the property owners and taxpayers who are affected by this," Soper said. "We appreciate the county's efforts in resolving this case to make sure that the taxpayers who paid unlawfully high taxes are compensated." If won rather than settled, the class action lawsuit would have seen hundreds of thousands residents receiving direct, one-time payments from the county, intended to reimburse excessive funds paid on 2023 property taxes. The settlement class was finalized on July 16 and includes about 200,000 Jackson County homeowners. If the settlement goes through, homeowners both inside and outside the lawsuit class would still have to pay property taxes those years, but would be directed by the county to pay a lower bill than they otherwise would have, to account for a third of whatever the homeowner allegedly overpaid in 2023. The county has not released estimates of how much each tax credit would be worth on average. The county tax program referenced in the settlement is also expected to lead to inroads in the county's ongoing legal battle with the Missouri State Tax Commission, which previously directed the county to roll back its 2023 assessments. The state's lawsuit focuses on communication and procedural issues, alleging that Jackson County did not follow the proper legal steps notifying homeowners before raising home values by upwards of 15% per parcel. The county's recent tax credit efforts, spearheaded by Interim County Executive Phil LeVota, have been criticized for excluding people who owned property in Jackson County in 2023 but have since sold or moved. For people in this situation, the settlement proposal would provide some relief. Class members would be allowed to apply the tax credits to their new parcel if they bought elsewhere in Jackson County. If they had moved away, they would receive a direct refund split into chunks over three years, but only if they file a claim within 45 days of the lawsuit formally settling. In the MOU, the county also proposed creating a "Special Circumstances Fund" to reimburse residents who had spent their own money on property appraisals or attorneys in order to contest their 2023 property value in the past. As they apply to the proposed settlement, the credits will only be offered to owners of residential properties, not those zoned as commercial or agricultural. They also come with a series of exceptions, including nursing homes; buildings in tax increment financing (TIF) districts; multifamily dwellings with more than eight units, which includes many of the county's apartment buildings; and housing built after 2023. Under the proposed settlement, the county would pay up to $4 million toward attorneys' fees paid by members of the lawsuit class. If the lawsuit had played out in court, the losing party would be responsible for the other party's attorneys' fees, along with any other fees or damages awarded by a circuit court judge. County employees and those familiar with the property tax situation in Jackson County have previously warned that the class action lawsuit could be disastrous for county finances without a settlement. At a June forum for county executive candidates, former Legislator Dan Tarwater III said that the lawsuit could cost up to $1 billion in payouts, potentially bankrupting Jackson County. A case management conference on the class action took place July 20, giving county and class representatives an opportunity to move toward settlement. Class members would then be notified ahead of a final settlement hearing. Jackson County is still facing a separate lawsuit by the Independence and Fort Osage school districts in opposition to the three-year tax credit program. Jackson County taxing jurisdictions like cities, schools and libraries have warned that the new tax credits will rely on "clawing back" millions of dollars already spent, which could destabilize future budgets or force the districts to slash staff and programming. [GN] JUPITER MEDICAL: Roker Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jarrett Roker, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jupiter Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 9:26-cv-80171 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00621-BP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jupiter Medical Center -- https://www.jupitermed.com/ -- is the leading destination for world-class health care in Palm Beach County and across the Treasure Coast region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren R. Newhart, Esq. NEWHART LEGAL, P.A. 14611 Southern Blvd., Suite 1351 Loxahatchee, FL 33470 Phone: (561) 331-1806 Email: darren@newhartlegal.com - and - James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. Julie Singer Brady, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - ORLANDO FL 200 S Orange Ave., Ste. 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4699 Email: ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com JUUL LABS: BC Court Certifies Class Suit on E-Cigarette Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino of Canadian Lawyer Mag reports that The British Columbia Supreme Court certified a class proceeding against defendants JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., JUUL Labs, Inc., and Altria Group Inc., commenced by plaintiffs who pursued damages for personal injuries due to the use of JUUL-branded e-cigarette devices. In Mann-Campbell v JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd., 2026 BCSC 1288, the plaintiffs applied to certify the proposed class action via a notice of application filed on Nov. 25, 2021. The plaintiffs pleaded causes of action for negligence, toxic tort, breach of consumer protection legislation, contractual breach, unjust enrichment, civil fraud, conspiracy, breach of the federal Competition Act, 1985, and breach of BC's Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2008. In a response filed on Dec. 2, 2020, Altria disputed the court's jurisdiction and sought to dismiss or stay the claim against it. BC Supreme Court's prior reasons In its jurisdiction reasons released on Oct. 14, 2022, the BC Supreme Court found a good, arguable case that the claim against Altria alleged a tort committed in the province. The court added that Altria failed to rebut the resulting presumption of jurisdiction under s. 10(g) of BC's Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, 2003. In reasons released on May 14, 2025, the court decided that the plaintiffs disclosed causes of action against some or all the defendants, except for the toxic tort and fraud claims. The court also saw irregularities and ambiguities that required correction. The court adjourned the certification application to permit the plaintiffs to amend the class definition and the proposed common issues. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to amend the fourth amended notice of civil claim to: -- Delete the claim for damages for purchasing and using JUUL products when they would not have otherwise done so -- Correct the ambiguity regarding the defendants' direct sales to consumers -- Remove the toxic tort and fraud claims Certification granted Claiming that they had addressed the issues identified in the 2025 reasons, the plaintiffs again applied for certification. The defendants opposed certification. Altria alleged that it was only an indirect investor in JUUL Labs, Inc. for a limited period and was not involved in designing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, or selling JUUL products in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia allowed certification under BC's Class Proceedings Act, 1986, upon confirming that the plaintiffs had made the necessary amendments. In its orders, the court: -- permitted the plaintiffs to file the proposed fifth amended notice of civil claim -- defined the class as Canadian residents, except for excluded persons, who used and bought JUUL devices or pods in Canada for primarily personal purposes from Aug. 1, 2018, until the certification date (the class period) -- named two representative plaintiffs -- appointed Siskinds LLP and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP as class counsel certified the common issues -- approved the litigation and notice plans BC Supreme Court's findings First, the BC Supreme Court did not consider the creation of subclasses a certification requirement. The court ruled that the JUUL defendants failed to show: -- a conflict of interest -- any differences impacting the representative plaintiffs' ability to sufficiently and fairly represent all class members -- the need for separate representation to protect the subclass members' interests Lastly, rather than extensively addressing Altria's submissions, the court refused to reopen or revisit the findings and determinations in the 2025 reasons. The court pointed out that Altria was trying to reargue issues already addressed and decided in the 2025 reasons. [GN] K LINE LOGISTICS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against K Line Logistics (U.S.A.) Inc. The case is styled as Griselda Hernandez, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. K Line Logistics (U.S.A.) Inc., Case No. 26STCV22591 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case General Jurisdiction)." K Line Logistics (U.S.A.) Inc. -- https://us.klinelogistics.com/ -- is a leading international logistics company including freight forwarding and customs brokerage services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Win Pham, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law KB 333: Yang Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Yang, an individual, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. KB 333, a California corporation; ERICA CHIN, an individual and California citizen; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV22650 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 20, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Labor Codes as result of the Defendant's Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure To Pay Due Wages At Termination; Failure to Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Pay Sick Leave; Failure to Pay Earned Vacation Wages; Unfair Competition; Unlawful Employment Condition in Violation of the Labor Codes. For at least 4 years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to the present, Defendants have had a policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees routinely working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days on a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff as a non-exempt hourly employee performing duties as a server starting around May 25, 2026. KB 333 is a California corporation doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A Professional Law Corporation 801 S. Grand Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 22941114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com mrobinson@rdwlaw.com KEYSTONE POWDERED: Jennings Files Suit in PA Ct. of Common Pleas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keystone Powdered Metal Company. The case is styled as Susan Jennings, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Keystone Powdered Metal Company, Case No. 2026-565 (Pennsylvania Ct. of Common Pleas, Elk Cty., July 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Dispute." Keystone Powdered Metal Company -- https://www.keystonepm.com/ -- specializes in precision powdered metal manufacturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Ross, Esq. 1 East Third Street Coudersport, PA 16915 KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Telluride SUVs Battery Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Marc Brenman filed a class action lawsuit against Kia America Inc. Why: Brenman claims Kia manufactured and sold Telluride SUVs with a defect that causes the battery to drain while the car is turned off. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Kia Telluride vehicles contain a defect that can cause the battery to drain while the vehicle is turned off, resulting in various electrical malfunctions and safety hazards. Plaintiff Marc Brenman claims the defect affects Telluride models from model years 2020 through 2026 and can leave drivers stranded with an inoperable vehicle. Brenman argues the defect, which he refers to as the “Parasitic Drain Defect,” is caused by a failure in the vehicle’s electronic control module, which regulates the flow of electricity between the battery and other components. Brenman claims the defect causes the battery to drain excessively while the vehicle is turned off and creates power surges or uneven power supplies while driving. The class action lawsuit alleges the defect can lead to stalled engines, failure of essential safety components like the speedometer and power steering, and costly battery replacements. Kia accused of hiding Telluride battery defect Brenman claims Kia has been aware of the defect since at least 2021 through consumer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and its own pre-release testing. Despite this knowledge, Brenman claims Kia has not issued a recall or informed consumers about the defect, which can manifest quickly after purchase and is detectable through common pre-sale tests, the Kia class action lawsuit alleges. Brenman claims he began experiencing battery issues with his 2021 Kia Telluride in the fall of 2025, including dashboard messages indicating the battery was discharging to an external device. He says the problem persisted even after he replaced the battery, and he was eventually forced to jump-start the vehicle with an external power source. He also claims he took the vehicle to a Kia dealership, but the mechanic was unable to determine the cause of the battery drain and charged him for the service. Brenman wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased a Kia Telluride from model years 2020 through 2026. He is suing for violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, fraud, fraudulent omission, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment and is seeking certification of the Kia class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In 2024, two consumers filed a class action lawsuit alleging the same Telluride SUV models from 2020-2024 have a life-threatening brake defect and that the company has not issued a recall for or released a reliable fix. What do you think of the claims made in this Kia class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Tina Wolfson, Robert R. Ahdoot, Christopher E. Stiner and Lisa Cintron of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C. and Carter E. Greenbaum of Greenbaum Olbrantz LLP. The Kia Telluride class action lawsuit is Brenman v. Kia America Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01428, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] KINGSTON BRASS: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Vanderpoel Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY VANDERPOEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINGSTON BRASS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04102-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intercepting, recording, decoding, capturing, disclosing, and using the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications with Defendant's Website, as well as their routing, addressing, and signaling information, and for aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same, by means of a tracking pixel and related tracking technologies embedded in Defendant's Website. The complaint relates that the Website presents itself as a provider of housing and real estate services. Defendant also deals in data, which has become an increasingly valuable commodity. To collect that data, Defendant deployed tracking technologies on the Website, including a tracking pixel made available by Meta Platforms, Inc. Each time Plaintiff and Class Members navigated, searched, browsed, and interacted with the Website, they transmitted electronic communications to, and exchanged electronic communications with, Defendant's servers. These communications were transfers of signs, signals, writing, images, data, and intelligence transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects interstate commerce. These communications contained their contents, that is, information concerning the substance, purport, and meaning of the communications, including the search terms Plaintiff and Class Members entered, the specific products and pages they requested and viewed, the contents of those requests, and the responses they received. The interception occurred while the communications were in transit. The Meta Pixel's code executed within Plaintiff's and Class Members' browsers and transmitted the contents of their communications to Meta and other third parties at the moment of, or simultaneously with, the user's interaction with the Website, and before or contemporaneously with the communications being received by Defendant. The Plaintiff and Class Members had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they did not expect that a third party such as Meta would covertly intercept the contents of their communications with the Website, and Defendant gained access to that information by covert electronic means, in violation of law and established social norms, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured by Defendant's violations of the California Penal Code and each seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation, together with injunctive relief to stop the alleged violations. Plaintiff Jeffrey Vanderpoel is a citizen of the state of California who visited and interacted with the Website. Defendant Kingston Brass, Inc. owns and operates the website https://www.kingstonbrass.com through which consumers in California and elsewhere browse and access the website for personal use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Noah@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com KRAUSE AND KINSMAN: Heard Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gayle Heard, Jamie White, John Jones, Forest Martin, Atricia Tate, Jimmie Corley, and Jeffrey Miles, and others similarly situated v. KRAUSE AND KINSMAN TRIAL LAWYERS, LLP; ADAM KRAUSE, ROBERT KINSMAN; CRISTOBAL M. GALINDO; MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC; and ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2024-08026 was removed from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on July 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01593. The Plaintiffs, Gayle Heard, Forest Martin, and Jamie White filed a Petition on August 29, 2024, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James M. Garner, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kessler, Esq. Grant G. Butler, Esq. SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street - 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: 504-299-2100 Facsimile: 504-299-2300 Email: jgarner@shergarner.com jkessler@shergarner.com gbutler@shergarner.com LEMONTREE HEALTHCARE: Williams Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Lemontree Healthcare Services LLC. The case is styled as MERCALL CONRAD WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. LEMONTREE HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC, a Virgina Limited Liability Company, et al., Case No. 26STCV19627 (Cal. Super., June 18, 2026). The action arises from the Plaintiff's allegations of labor law violations by the Defendant. Lemontree Healthcare Services LLC is a healthcare service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3601 LENDINGTREE LLC: Todorov Balks at Illegal Text Message Campaigns ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAI TODOROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGTREE, LLC D/B/A QUOTE WIZARD., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00580-MEO-DCK (W.D.N.C., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in aggressive text message campaigns to consumers with no regard for consumers' rights under the TCPA, even after customers opt out from Defendant's text messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. LendingTree, LLC d/b/a Quote Wizard is a limited liability company that provides lending marketplace and insurance-quoting services to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC 9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com LIVIONEX INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVIONEX, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.LIVFRESH.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CU016687C, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03637-DMS-MMP to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff claims that Livionex allegedly caused her to incur unlawful charges after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription on Livionex's website. The Plaintiff alleges that Livionex violated California's Automatic Renewal Law by purportedly: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures required by law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and cancellation instructions in a form capable of being retained by the consumer. Livionex, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical and biotech company based in Los Gatos, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Amanda H. Russo, Esq. Lora J. Krsulich, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 E-mail: arusso@goodwinlaw.com lkrsulich@goodwinlaw.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Early-Stage Securities Suits over SEC Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lockheed Martin Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is currently facing shareholder suits over its disclosures with the SEC about its F-35 program. A putative securities class action was filed on July 28, 2025, and subsequently amended on Jan. 12, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former members of its senior management. The shareholder plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Jan. 23, 2024 and July 21, 2025. They seek recovery of unspecified losses allegedly caused by misstatements about certain classified programs in the Aeronautics and MFC business segments and the F-35 program. Plaintiffs claim that these alleged misstatements were purportedly revealed to be false when the company announced estimated losses relating to certain of those programs. Separate shareholder derivative complaints were filed in another federal court, which are based on substantially similar allegations concerning the same classified programs and the F-35 program. These were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on Sept. 11, 2025, and May 18, 2026, against current and former members of the company's board of directors and senior management. The company is named as a nominal defendant in these proceedings. Together, the derivative complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a), 20(a), and 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as common law or state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and contribution. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to recover on behalf of the company for alleged harms arising from the same or similar misstatements and oversight failures that underlie the putative securities class action. Lockheed Martin Corp is a global security and aerospace company that researches, designs, develops, manufactures, and sustains advanced technology systems and services for defense, civil, and commercial customers worldwide. It is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. LONDON COMPUTER: Faces Porter Suit Over Rent Payments' Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- SOPHIA PORTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LONDON COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. and PAYLEASE LLC d/b/a ZEGO, Case No. 26STCV23151 (Cal. Super., July 22, 2026) arises from the Defendants' deceptive and unfair imposition of junk "Convenience Fees" on rent payments completed through Rent Manager. According to the complaint, the Defendants' imposition of the Convenience Fee on rent payments is improper for five First, it is unfair and deceptive under state consumer protection laws to charge renters fees to make their lease payments, especially when they are not informed of such fees prior to leasing an apartment. Just as an advertised hotel rate reasonably implies there will not be additional fees for using a bed, an advertised lease rate reasonably implies a consumer may pay the amount of a lease without additional charges or the assessment of additional, unauthorized rent. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action seeking monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff was a tenant of a property in, Los Angeles, California. On multiple occasions, she was assessed a Convenience Fee for paying rent through Defendants' online portal. LCS's flagship product is Rent Manager, a property-management software suite utilized by landlords and property managers to manage, among other things, rent payments, tenant screening, leasing and property maintenance. Zego is a limited liability company headquartered in California. Zego's flagship product is Zego Pay, a payment-processing tool embedded into Rent Manager and utilized by landlords and property managers to manage rent payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com LOS ANGELES COLLECTIVE: Parker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles Collective, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Los Angeles Collective, LLC d/b/a L'Agence, Case No. 1:26-cv-06126 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Los Angeles Collective, LLC does business as L'AGENCE -- https://lagence.com/ -- is a luxury women's contemporary fashion brand offering apparel, denim, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Leonard Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 324-2897 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com LPL FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Variable Insurance Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- On June 3, 2026, a class action lawsuit (Nietz v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03383-JES-DEB) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against LPL Financial LLC ("LPL") on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who acquired rights under Phoenix annuities or life insurance policies sold or serviced through LPL investment advisors. The lawsuit alleges that LPL breached fiduciary duties and failed to disclose information concerning the financial condition of The Phoenix Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary, PHL Variable Insurance Company ("Phoenix" or "PHL"), the issuer of the insurance products. The lawsuit was filed by Kerry Nietz, who is represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Edward Stone Law P.C., on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who acquired rights under Phoenix annuities or life insurance policies sold or serviced through LPL investment advisors. According to the complaint, ratings agencies downgraded Phoenix's credit rating beginning in 2009, after which LPL removed Phoenix products from its recommended platform and stopped offering them for sale. The complaint further alleges that LPL did not notify existing policyholders of these developments and continued servicing the policies while receiving ongoing trail commissions. On May 20, 2024, the Connecticut Insurance Department placed PHL Variable Insurance Company into rehabilitation. A rehabilitation order remains in effect that limits or restricts certain policy withdrawals, surrenders and death benefit payments. The complaint asserts claims for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class and other relief requested in the complaint. Related Litigation Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Edward Stone Law P.C. also represent policyholders in separate litigation ( Jason et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., No. 25-cv-14507 ) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, involving Phoenix/PHL insurance products sold through State Farm. According to that complaint, the plaintiffs allege that State Farm failed to disclose information concerning PHL's financial condition while continuing to service certain Phoenix/PHL insurance products. Both lawsuits remain pending, and the allegations contained in the complaints have not been adjudicated by the courts. Individuals who acquired rights under a Phoenix or PHL Variable annuity or life insurance policy through LPL, State Farm, or another broker-dealer or financial advisor and who have questions regarding these matters can find additional information, including counsel contact information, at edwardstonelaw.com and bursor.com. Bursor & Fisher, P.A. is a nationwide law firm with offices in New York, California, and Florida that specializes in prosecuting class action and complex litigation. The firm has extensive expertise leading class action litigation against companies in the communications, pharmaceutical, automotive, financial, and insurance industries, and has achieved multi-million dollar settlements against many large companies. About Edward Stone Law P.C. Edward Stone Law P.C. focuses its practice on matters related to the specialty finance and insurance industries and on retiree and policyholder advocacy. The firm has expertise representing individuals harmed by insurance company insolvencies and has recovered millions of dollars on behalf of its clients. Contact Yitz Kopel, Esq. Bursor & Fisher, P.A. ykopel@bursor.com - and - Edward Stone, Esq. Edward Stone Law P.C. eddie@edwardstonelaw.com [GN] LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Short Class Suit Seeks OT Pay for CW Specialists ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SHORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:26-cv-08691 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2026) is a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Child Welfare Specialists who were denied overtime because of Defendant's misclassification. The Defendant employed Plaintiff and other individuals in non-managerial positions in Illinois to perform case management services under various job titles containing the terms, "Child Welfare Specialist," "Child Specialist," "Family Case Manager," and "Family Service Case Manager (CW Specialists)." The Defendant paid some or all CW Specialists a salary. The Defendant's CW Specialists regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant classified CW Specialists as exempt from overtime and did not pay them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant employed Plaintiff and other individuals in non-managerial positions to produce the case management services that Defendant contracts with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to provide pursuant to purchase-of-service contracts. The Plaintiff also brings class claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) for the Defendant's failure to pay her and other CW Specialists for all earned overtime pay. The Defendant is a non-profit organization that provides child welfare case management services for children and families enrolled in programs administered by government agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Kroot, Esq. PRIMARY LAW GROUP, P.C. 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 677-0856 E-mail: joshua.kroot@primarylawgroup.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 13341 W. US Hwy 290, Building 2 Austin, TX 78737 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz LXP INDUSTRIAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Brookfield Asset ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating LXP Industrial Trust (NYSE: LXP) related to its sale to Brookfield Asset Management and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, LXP shareholders are expected to receive $61.20 per share in cash. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lxp-industrial-trust/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] MASIS STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Richard Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Masis Staffing Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Heidi Richard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Masis Staffing Solutions LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-40180 (D. Mass., July 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Masis Staffing Solutions -- https://masisstaffing.com/ -- is a staffing and recruiting company specializing in light industrial recruitment services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com MATTRESS FIRM: Wedge Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alan Wedge, Alex Trinidad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mattress Firm, Inc., Case No. 26-00002-18878-5 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02534 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Other Contract. Mattress Firm, Inc. -- https://www.mattressfirm.com/ -- is an American mattress store chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brook Garberding, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC 600 Stewart St., Ste. 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Email: brook@emeryreddy.com - and - Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. EMERY REDDY PC (CA) 333 University Ave., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A James, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 SE 30th Pl, Ste. 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: (425) 454-4233 Fax: (425) 453-9005 Email: jjames@sbj.law MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Cruz Files Labor Class Action in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Mattson Technology, Inc. The case is captioned ROWENA DELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 26CV194604 (Cal. Super., June 16, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. Judge Chad A. Stegeman presides over the case. A scheduled initial case management conference was moved from November 23, 2026, to December 4. Mattson Technology Inc. is an American technology company which was founded in 1988 by Brad Mattson and is based in Fremont, California.[BN] MAXLINEAR INC: Faces 2 Securities Class Actions Over Merger Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MaxLinear, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is currently facing two putative securities class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California with one on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. One lawsuit was filed by a Silicon Motion stockholder in on Aug. 31, 2023, captioned "Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc.," against it and certain of its current officers. The complaint asserted two claims, including an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that the company had a duty to disclose concerning its intention to close the merger with Silicon Motion. On Dec. 20, 2023, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, who thereafter filed a Consolidated Complaint on Feb. 15, 2024. It continued to allege that the defendants were liable for securities law violations arising out of purported misstatements and omissions regarding the company's intention to consummate the merger transaction. It maintained the asserted Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) claims against MaxLinear and its officers. On Aug. 28, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue MaxLinear and its officers in connection with the asserted claims. As a result of this ruling, the case was dismissed without prejudice. In addition, on Sept. 18, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, or the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint includes the same two claims as alleged in the Consolidated Complaint and makes similar factual allegations against the MaxLinear defendants, but added Silicon Motion and certain of its officers as additional defendants. On July 15, 2025, the court dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiffs were not permitted to amend it further. On Aug. 8, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On Nov. 6, 2025, they filed their opening brief with the Court of Appeals, and on Jan. 22, 2026, the MaxLinear defendants filed their answering brief. The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 13, 2026. Separately, on June 13, 2024, HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Merger Strategies Master Fund L.P., stockholders of Silicon Motion, or collectively, the HBK plaintiffs, filed an additional complaint in the Southern District of California captioned "HBK Master Fund L.P. v. MaxLinear, Inc.," against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers. The HBK complaint also alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, among other alleged violations, and claims that the defendants concealed their intention to terminate the merger with Silicon Motion from Silicon Motion's shareholders. The HBK complaint seeks compensatory damages, including interest, costs and expenses, punitive damages, and such other equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate. MaxLinear, Inc. is a fabless semiconductor company that designs and supplies high-performance broadband, connectivity and infrastructure solutions for operators, enterprises and consumers worldwide. Its products are used in applications such as broadband gateways, connectivity devices, data center, industrial and multi-market infrastructure systems. MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities and Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Medpace Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that on April 6, 2026, Jan Durbin filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned "Durbin v. Medpace Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:26-cv-00346. The complaint names as defendants Medpace Holdings, Inc., August J. Troendle, Jesse J. Geiger, and Kevin M. Brady, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b). Plaintiff asserts that defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the company's book-to-bill ratio in order to deceive the market in violation of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other litigation costs. In addition, on June 22, 2026, Stephen Bushansky filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:26-cv-617) purporting to bring a stockholder derivative action on behalf of the company against Medpace Holdings and certain of its current and past officers and directors, namely August J. Troendle, Jesse J. Geiger, Kevin M. Brady, Susan E. Burwig, Stephen P. Ewald, Brian T. Carley, Fred B. Davenport, Jr., Femida H. Gwadry-Sridhar, Robert O. Kraft, Cornelius P. "Neal" McCarthy III, and Dani Zander, in connection with the company's statements related to its book-to-bill ratio. The plaintiff alleges that the director defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder and are also liable under Section 21D of the Exchange Act, which governs the application of any private right of action for contribution asserted pursuant to the federal securities laws. The complaint also asserts state law claims, alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, and were unjustly enriched. The derivative plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and other relief. Medpace Holdings, Inc. is a global clinical contract research organization providing full-service development services to biopharmaceutical and medical device companies. It supports clinical development from early phase through post-approval, specializing in complex and scientifically driven therapeutic areas. MERITAGE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERITAGE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.; and INSPIRED BY OPPORTUNITY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26CV423 (Mass. Super., Hampden Cty., June 22, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants as a general manager. Meritage Hospitality Group Inc. operates various Wendy's restaurants throughout western and southern Michigan. The Company is also constructing a Wendy's restaurant combined with a Meijer convenience store and gas station facility. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com MII BRAND IMPORT: Leyva Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christina Leyva, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. MII BRAND IMPORT, LLC; VICTORIAS SECRET DIRECT BRAND MANAGEMENT; VICTORIAS SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, LLC; VS DIRECT FULFILLMENT, LLC; VS SERVICE COMPANY, LLC; MII Brand Import, LLC; Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, LLC; Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC; VS Direct Fulfillment, LLC; VS Service Company, LLC, Case No. 2026CH05397 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-08502 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Other Contract. Mii Brand Import, LLC is a United States-based apparel merchant wholesaler specializing in the global sourcing, import, and export of women's clothing and fashion accessories.[BN] MIRBEAU HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hidden Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Kulkus of syracuse.com reports that two women have filed a class-action lawsuit against Mirbeau Hospitality Services, which operates the inn and spa in Skaneateles, alleging the resort charges customers hidden fees for its hotel rooms. The lawsuit was filed in federal court, Northern District of New York, on May 20. In the lawsuit, the women claim they were charged additional fees for stays at Mirbeau that were not originally advertised or disclosed. Mirbeau operates four properties in New York state: Skaneateles, Albany, Beacon and Rhinebeck and one in Plymouth, Mass. The lawsuit cites fees for stays at the Plymouth and Rhinebeck locations specifically but says the purchase process is similar to making a reservation at the Skaneateles Mirbeau. The lawsuit describes what's known as "drip pricing," which is the practice of adding additional fees, often called junk fees, after the initially advertised price. "Drip pricing robs consumers of the right to know the actual rate they are paying for a hotel and denies them the opportunity to fairly compare hotel rates," the lawsuit says. The lawsuit alleges Mirbeau advertised hotel room prices that did not include additional taxes and fees. Those were added later and came as a surprise to customers, the suit says. "Before a consumer checks out, they are ambushed by expensive fees that significantly increase the total cost of a hotel room," the lawsuit says. "These fees are hidden, and only visible by clicking on an unlabeled dropdown arrow on the booking summary or checkout screens, and are only shown to consumers after they have clicked through numerous pages." A lawyer for Mirbeau said the claims are false. "We have been completely open and clear about any and all fees that we've ever charged," said Jonathan Dal Pos, general counsel at Mirbeau Hospitality Services. "This is a lawsuit brought by a disgruntled individual after being banned from our property. While we cannot comment on the details of pending litigation, we know the facts and believe the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves through the legal process." The lawsuit was filed by Rachel Lumbra, of Rotterdam, and Karen Fitzgerald, of Wilmington, Mass. for stays last year at the Rhinebeck and Plymouth locations respectively. Dal Pos said Lumbra was banned from Mirbeau properties. Their attorneys did not respond to a request for comment. The class-action lawsuit says it is on behalf of any Mirbeau customers whose hotel rooms were similarly marketed. Lumbra is seeking to recover actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, for herself and class-action plaintiffs in New York state. Fitzgerald is seeking actual damages or $25, whichever is greater. The lawsuit mentions a Federal Trade Commission rule enacted in May 2025 that protects consumers from deceptive fees. The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees "prohibits bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to hide total prices and mislead people about fees in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries," according to the FTC. "These unfair and deceptive pricing practices can harm consumers and undercut businesses trying to compete fairly on price." [GN] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Dismissal Hearing Set, Derivative Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Molina Healthcare, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is facing a securities class action and derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The class action suit and its procedural history were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 3, 2025. It was brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired company securities between Feb. 5, 2025, and July 23, 2025. It challenged the company's disclosures under the federal securities laws and focuses in part on statements related to earnings guidance. On March 31, 2026, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint and expanded the purported class period from Oct. 23, 2024, to Feb. 6, 2026. It continues to assert violations of federal securities laws relating to its disclosures, including those involving earnings guidance. On June 5, 2026, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the Securities Action. The hearing on that motion is scheduled for Sept. 2, 2026. Additionally, on Dec. 12, 2025, a shareholder derivative suit, captioned Taylor v. Wolf, et al., was filed in the same court. It was brought against the company's directors and certain officers. It is asserted on behalf of the company and is distinct from the Securities Action, which is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of company securities. Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company that provides health care services to financially vulnerable families and individuals covered by government-sponsored programs. It offers Medicaid, Medicare, and health insurance marketplace plans across multiple U.S. states through its health plans and affiliated health care services. MONSANTO COMPANY: Recchion Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elaine Recchion, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer A.G., Case No. 5:26-cv-03736 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07366-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aimee H Wagstaff, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC 7171 West Alaska Drive Denver, CO 80226 Phone: (720) 208-9403 Fax: (303) 376-6361 Email: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com - and - Benjamin Gillig, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: bgillig@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ian Worthington Forgie, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 N. Lincoln St. Denver, CO 94104 Phone: (720) 506-2319 Email: iforgie@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Taylen Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cathleen Taylen, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer CropScience LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02377 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-07367-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Gillig, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: bgillig@wagstafflawfirm.com MOODSWINGS LLC: Agrees to Settle Ticket Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that consumers who purchased tickets online for Moodswings shows in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York or Tennessee during specific periods may be eligible to claim a cash payment or discount code from a class action settlement. Moodswings LLC agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to disclose service charges for online ticket purchases in several states. Who can file a claim for a payout? Class members are individuals who purchased tickets to a Moodswings show through one of the following websites during a qualifying state-specific timeframe: -- tickets.mesmerica.com -- tickets.beautifica.show -- tickets.changeworlds.org -- ticketshop.mesmerica.com Eligibility depends on the state where the class member purchased the tickets and the date of purchase: -- California: July 1, 2024, to June 20, 2025 -- Colorado: Aug. 7, 2024, to Aug. 31, 2025 -- Connecticut: Oct. 1, 2023, to Aug. 31, 2025 -- Maryland: July 1, 2024, to June 20, 2025 -- New York: Aug. 29, 2022, to June 20, 2025 -- Tennessee: July 1, 2023, to Aug. 26, 2025 Consumers who bought tickets in more than one state or during multiple periods may be eligible for multiple claims depending on the number of tickets and the state-specific class definitions. How much can class members get? -- Cash payment: Class members who submit an approved claim will receive a cash payment for each ticket purchased during the class period. The payment amount varies by state: -- California: $3.37 per ticket -- Colorado: $2.54 per ticket -- Connecticut: $2.65 per ticket -- Maryland: $3.48 per ticket -- New York: $7.12 per ticket -- Tennessee: $3.70 per ticket -- Discount code: Class members who do not submit a claim will receive a discount code for a 25% discount on a future ticket purchase. They can use the code for up to four tickets or the number of tickets they purchased during the qualifying period, whichever is greater. How to claim a settlement payment To receive a cash payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Oliva v. Moodswings, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, PO Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 The claim deadline is Sept. 18, 2026. Required claim information To file an online claim, class members must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Venmo -- PayPal -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $274,125 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $1,000 each ($6,000 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Total determined by number of valid claims filed -- Discount codes to eligible class members: Total determined by number of class members who do not submit a claim Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 18, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 18, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Dec. 17, 2026 When is the Moodswings settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments within 90 days after the settlement receives final court approval. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Moodswings failed to disclose service charges for online ticket purchases to its shows in several states. The plaintiffs claimed this violated consumer protection laws in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Tennessee. Moodswings denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $2.54-$7.12 per ticket Deadline: September 18, 2026 [GN] MVP VIP HOLDCO: Davis Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Kan. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against MVP VIP Holdco, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Milton Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MVP VIP Holdco, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02350-EFM-ADM (D. Kan., June 16, 2026). The suit is brought over Plaintiff's breach of contract claims against the Defendant. The case is assigned to District Judge Eric F. Melgren and referred to Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell. MVP VIP Holdco, LLC is a corporate entity doing business as Heart of America Eye Care affiliated with Vision Integrated Partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com NAUTILUS INTERNATIONAL: Mixon Files Labor Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Nautilus International Holding Corporation. The case is captioned JAZMINE UNIQUE MIXON, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. NAUTILUS INTERNATIONAL HOLDING CORPORATION, a California Stock Corporation, et al., Case No. 26STCV19585 (Cal. Super., June 18, 2026). The action arises from the Plaintiff's allegations of employment law violations by the Defendant. Nautilus International Holding Corporation operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides marine transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Demirjian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N Madison Avenue, 2nd Fl. Pasadena, CA 91101 NEIST MEDIA: Grossman Sues Over Deceptive Mouth Tape Ads -------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY GROSSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEIST MEDIA LLC d/b/a HOSTAGE TAPE, Defendant, Case No. 2026-CAB-004146 (Super, D.C., June 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The Defendant sells Hostage Tape, an adhesive tape marketed for consumers to wear over their mouths during sleep. Neist Media aggressively promotes Hostage Tape through its website, social media, and other marketing channels, targeting "high performers" with claims that the product improves sleep, reduces snoring, and enhances athletic performance. By Neist Media's own account, it has sold 51 million strips of tape to more than 150,000 nightly users and generates approximately $40 million in annual revenue. According to the complaint, Neist Media's representations about Hostage Tape's safety are false and misleading. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the nation's professional organization for sleep medicine, representing more than 12,000 accredited member sleep centers, has specifically warned that mouth taping "can be extremely dangerous." Amazon independently concluded that "customers who use mouth tape while sleeping face potential risks, such as an allergic reaction and obstructed breathing," and on that basis banned all mouth tape from its platform, effective July 31, 2023. Rather than disclose these risks, Neist Media mounted a years-long campaign to reframe the Amazon ban as proof of its product's effectiveness. The Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased Hostage Tape in reliance on Neist Media's false safety representations paid prices between $24.95 and $99.95 for a product they would not have purchased -- or would have paid less for -- had they been truthfully informed. The Plaintiff brings this action to hold Neist Media accountable for its deceptive trade practices and to obtain relief for all similarly situated District of Columbia consumers. Neist Media LLC is a health and wellness company operating an e-commerce website at hostagetape.com through which it sells Hostage Tape products to consumers throughout the United States, including the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. Arturo Pena Miranda, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC 228 Park Avenue South, Suite 97956 New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com arturo.pena@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com NINTENDO CO: Bids to Dismiss Tariff Rebates Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ty Roush of Forbes reports that Nintendo argued consumers "received exactly what they bargained and paid for" after raising the price for its Switch 2 console, asking a court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit claiming the video game giant should issue tariff rebates, as only a handful of companies have said they would issue refunds. Nintendo, in a motion filed late Monday, July 20, argued consumers who sued the firm to receive tariff refunds are "not entitled" to a rebate and claimed the money they paid for Nintendo products "represents the purchase price of the goods they wanted and received." Consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Nintendo in April, claiming the company -- which sued the Trump administration to recoup tariff payments -- raised its prices because of the tariffs and would later receive refunds for those levies, effectively allowing the company to collect the costs twice. Nintendo's attorneys criticized the lawsuit's argument as "meritless," arguing consumers failed to dispute Nintendo's price adjustments as unlawful or that the company misled customers. In its motion, Nintendo said it made the "difficult decision" to raise prices for some of its products "in response to market conditions," which the firm said included tariffs as well as the cost of memory, labor and shipping. Shares of Nintendo dropped 4% in Tokyo-based trading on Tuesday, July 21. crucial quote "Nintendo or one of its retailers set a price for each product, and consumers decided whether that price was worth paying," Nintendo's attorneys wrote. "Those who bought Nintendo's products received exactly what they bargained and paid for: a console, game and/or accessory at a price to which both parties agreed." what companies will issue tariff refunds? Only a few have publicly stated they would pass on tariff refunds to consumers: Costco CEO Ron Vachris said in March the company would turn tariff refunds into "lower prices and better values." FedEx said it would issue refunds to shippers and consumers who originally paid the tariff charges. UPS similarly said it would reimburse customers for tariff-related charges. Tangent Ford, which has said it would not pass on tariff refunds, faces a proposed class-action lawsuit in Michigan from consumers who claim they should receive reimbursement. Ford previously said it expected a one-time $1.3 billion refund. key background Nintendo announced a price hike for its then-upcoming Switch 2 console one day after President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs against more than 180 countries last year. The video game firm launched global price hikes again earlier this year, citing "market conditions," following similar moves by Sony and Microsoft amid a broader chip supply crunch. The Trump administration has said it would refund $166 billion to some 300,000 different importers after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's levies were unlawful, leading the way for many firms, like Nintendo, to sue for reimbursement. Some economists have warned that tariff rebates would only benefit U.S. importers. Among those making that argument is UBS chief economist Paul Donovan, who wrote earlier this year it "seems unlikely anyone will rush to lower prices to their consumers." [GN] NJ LENDERS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $100,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that NJ Lenders Corp has agreed to an up to $100,000 class action settlement to wrap up a lawsuit that alleged the mortgage banker failed to protect sensitive files on its computer systems from a targeted August 2025 cyberattack. The NJ Lenders Corp class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on June 18, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who received a direct notice that their private information may have been impacted in the NJ Lenders Corp data breach. Court documents state that the names and Social Security numbers of roughly 30,000 people were impacted in the cyberattack. The court-approved website for the NJ Lenders data breach settlement can be found at NJLendersDataSettlement.com. Settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between August 18, 2025 and October 1, 2026 due to the NJ Lenders data breach. This benefit covers expenses stemming from identity theft and fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing/unfreezing credit, replacing IDs and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payout. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a claim form to receive a $40 cash payment, with no proof required. The amount of each class member's documented-loss or cash payout may be reduced on a pro rata basis should the total value of all valid claims exceed the $100,000 settlement cap. As part of the settlement, all class members can enroll in one year of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes financial fraud insurance and monitoring for fraud and identity theft, unauthorized financial transactions, and more. CyEx enrollment codes have been sent to all class members, and activation instructions will be shared once the class action settlement receives final approval from the court. To submit a NJ Lenders claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All NJ Lenders claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by October 1, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the NJ Lenders Corp data breach settlement following a hearing on October 16, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed after the settlement has received final approval and any appeals are resolved. The NJ Lenders data breach lawsuit alleged that the Little Falls, New Jersey-based mortgage banker failed to safeguard its computer systems from unauthorized access, which allegedly led to an August 2025 cyberattack that exposed consumers' names, Social Security numbers, and/or other non-public personally identifiable information. [GN] NOVO NORDISK: Sterner Files Class Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against NOVO NORDISK INC. et al. The case is captioned as MARY STERNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NOVO NORDISK INC. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-07353-RK-JTQ (D.N.J., June 18, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting account receivable claims against the Defendant under diversity jurisdiction. The case is assigned to Judge Robert Kirsch. NOvo Nordisk Inc. is a global healthcare company founded in 1923 in Denmark that makes treatments for diabetes, obesity, and rare blood disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILLBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com NTN BEARING: Edwards Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-08478 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. 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 discovered on May 13, 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. NTN Bearing Corporation of America is an industrial manufacturing company, headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com maccarone@kolawyers.com NTN BEARING: Mahr Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NTN Bearing Corporation of America. The case is styled as Donald Mahr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NTN Bearing Corporation of America, Case No. 1:26-cv-08477 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. NTN Bearing -- https://ntnamericas.com/ -- is a producer of ball and roller bearings, with plants around the globe and a strong, domestic manufacturing network.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com OBAGI COSMECEUTICALS: Underpays Company Employees, Lopez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OBAGI COSMECEUTICALS LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22625 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 20, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid wages. The complaint relates that the DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members to work without paying them for all the time they are under DEFENDANT's control. Among other things, DEFENDANT requires PLAINTIFF to work while clocked out during what is supposed to be PLAINTIFF's off-duty meal break. PLAINTIFF was from time to time interrupted by work assignments while clocked out for what should have been PLAINTIFF's off-duty meal break. DEFENDANT, as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the course of their employment, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA CLASS Members are paid less than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than "rounded" time. As a result, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeit minimum wage, overtime wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without their time being correctly recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates. Further, PLAINTIFF alleges that such failure to pay sick pay at regular rate was willful, such that PLAINTIFF and members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS whose employment has separated are entitled to waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code. The DEFENDANT's policy and practice not to pay PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for all time worked, is evidenced by DEFENDANT's business records, says the suit. As a proximate result of the aforementioned violations, PLAINTIFF and CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS Members have been damaged, and they seek all wages earned and due, interest, penalties, expenses and costs of suit. Plaintiff Juan Lopez was employed by DEFENDANT in California from April 8, 2019 to April 10, 2026. Defendant Obagi Cosmeceuticals LLC is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and markets medical-grade and prescription-strength skin care. DOES 1 through 50 are the Defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria B. Rivapalacio, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com PACIFIC GAS: $100M Securities Class Settlement Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 22, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that on Feb. 26, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduled the settlement approval hearing for Aug. 25, 2026 with regards to "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation." On July 6, 2026, the deadline for putative class members to object to the proposed settlement passed with no objections filed. In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in said court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its former officers as defendants, entitled "David C. Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al." and "Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al." The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015, to June 8, 2018. On Sept. 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed the Public Employee Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) as lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on Nov. 9, 2018. On Dec. 14, 2018, PERA filed a second amended consolidated complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, including allegations regarding transmission line safety and the PSPS program. On Feb. 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court, entitled "York County on behalf of the York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al.". The complaint named as defendants certain former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018, and neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant. The complaint asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note offerings related to, among other things, the defendant's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures. On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation." On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants certain former officers and directors and the underwriters. While PG&E Corporation and the Utility are also named as defendants in that consolidated pleading, the claims against them may only be pursued in Bankruptcy Court. On Oct. 24, 2024, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On Sept. 30, 2025, the court granted the motions to dismiss the third amended complaint with leave to amend. On Nov. 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint. On Dec. 22, 2025, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. In addition, developments have continued in the related securities litigation. On Jan. 10, 2026, PERA filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $100 million proposed settlement among PERA, the defendants, PG&E Corporation, and the Utility, to resolve the consolidated securities actions. The proposed settlement is subject to District Court approval. On Feb. 26, 2026, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduled the settlement approval hearing for Aug. 25, 2026. On July 6, 2026, the deadline for putative class members to object to the proposed settlement passed with no objections filed. Separately, on March 21, 2023, another group of shareholders filed a separate action in the District Court against certain former officers and directors, entitled Orbis Capital Limited et al. v. Williams et al., alleging similar claims to those alleged in In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation. In April 2026, PG&E Corporation and the Utility settled with this group of shareholders. On April 22, 2026, the shareholders filed a request for dismissal pursuant to that settlement agreement, and the District Court terminated the case. Pacific Gas & Electric Co is a regulated electric and natural gas utility serving millions of customers in Northern and Central California. Through its parent, PG&E Corporation, it provides electricity and gas transmission and distribution services and invests in grid safety, reliability, and wildfire mitigation. PARANA PLAYS: Taylor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parana Plays, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Wayne Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Parana Plays, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-08580 (W.D. Ky., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. PARANA is a game development studio that develops skill-based mobile games that leverage competitiveness and provides cash prize rewards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Rhoads, Esq. RHOADS & RHOADS. PSC 115 E. Second Street, Suite 100 Owensboro, KY 42302-2023 Phone: (270) 683-4600 Fax: (270) 683-1653 Email: chris@rhoadsandrhoads.com - and - Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 34205 Phone: (205) 930-9900 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com PENOBSCOT VALLEY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Penobscot Valley Hospital data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Penobscot Valley Hospital data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Penobscot Valley Hospital Security Incident: What Happened? Penobscot Valley Hospital, a hospital serving Penobscot County, Maine for over 50 years, has reported a data breach involving the sensitive information of its patients and employees. According to a notice posted to its website, Penobscot Valley Hospital was alerted to suspicious activity in its information technology environment on January 28, 2026. After an investigation with third-party forensic specialists, the practice determined on June 4, 2026 that personally identifiable and protected health information was potentially accessed during the incident, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information related to visits and financial information. A July 21, 2026 report to the Vermont Attorney General's Office states that the Penobscot Valley Hospital data breach may have specifically impacted financial account codes and credit and debit account information. What You Can Do After the Penobscot Valley Hospital Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Penobscot Valley Hospital data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Penobscot Valley Hospital to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] PG&E CORP: $100M Securities Class Settlement Gets Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated July 22, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that on Jan. 10, 2026, the Public Employee Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $100 million proposed settlement among PERA, the defendants, PG&E Corporation and its affiliates to resolve a consolidated securities actions. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval. On Feb. 26, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduled the settlement approval hearing for Aug. 25, 2026. On July 6, 2026, the deadline for putative class members to object to the proposed settlement passed with no objections filed. Said case is In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, consolidated on Sept. 10, 2018. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants certain former officers and directors and the underwriters. On Sept. 30, 2025, the court granted the motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, with leave to amend. On Nov. 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint. On Dec. 22, 2025, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint, and those motions remained pending as of the date of the disclosure. PG&E Corp. is a holding company whose primary operating subsidiary is Pacific Gas and Electric Co., a regulated public utility providing natural gas and electric service to millions of customers in northern and central California. It operates extensive electric transmission and distribution infrastructure and natural gas systems under the oversight of federal and state regulators. PILLSBURY WINTHROP: Archer Sues Over Data Security Breach --------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON ARCHER, MARTIN CHAVIRA-HERNANDEZ, and FREDERICO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, Defendant, CACE-26-011734 (Fla. Cir. 17th Jud., Broward Cty., July 20, 2026) is a class action complaint arising from data security breach following a cyberattack. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed its statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations to keep private information confidential, safe, secure and protected from unauthorized disclosure of access. On November 6, 2025, the Defendant reported Data Breach involving unauthorized access to sensitive Private Information including social security number, address, date of birth and financial account contained on its IT Network. Pillsbury Winthrop is an international law firm providing a range of corporate legal services with a particular focus on the technology, energy and natural resources, financial services, and real estate and construction sectors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Bank Sues Over Misrepresented Flash Drive Storage ------------------------------------------------------------------- TODD C. BANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. Case 1:26-cv-04418 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2026) is a class action suit seeking relief and damages for inaccurate capacity representations of the flash drives manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff Bank has purchased a flash drive on May 5, 2026 in New York believing that the item had a user storage capacity of the applicable represented capacity. According to the complaint, the actual user storage capacities of the flash drives are materially less than the represented capacities, in which the discrepancies are caused by the sealing off, or reserving, of a portion of the Flash Drives' storage capacity for various functions of the flash drives. PNY Technologies, Inc. manufactures computer storage devices. The Company offers memory cards, cables, drives, powerpacks, and cloud data storage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Fortune Consumer Suit Removed to D. Md. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case MICHAEL FORTUNE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORTFOLIO SERVICES LIMITED, INC. and REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. C-02-CV-26-001038, was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on July 17, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02812-SAG to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions, Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Portfolio Services Limited, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Portfolio Holding, Inc. based in Dallas, Texas. Regional Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company based in Greenville, North Carolina. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ezra S. Gollogly, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 361-8233 Email: egollogly@kg-law.com - and - David R. Pruet, III, Esq. Wes Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC The Clark Building 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 Facsimile: (205) 581-0799 Email: dpruet@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com PRIMORIS SERVICES: Boston Retirement Balks at Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM and NS PENSION PUBLIC EQUITY FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIMORIS SERVICES CORPORATION, KOTI VADLAMUDI, DAVID KING, KEN DODGEN, and JEREMY KINCH, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02416 (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Primoris common stock between August 5, 2025 and June 22, 2025, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs seek remedies and equitable relief arising from Primoris' wrongful conduct and scheme to deceive the market that artificially inflated the price of its common stock during the class period. According to the complaint, the Defendants misled Primoris investors by representing that the Company maintained "disciplined bidding," "well-developed estimating processes," effective project controls, and reliable cost forecasting that enabled it to accurately price and execute fixed-price renewable energy projects, "manage risk," and reliably forecast revenues, margins, and earnings. At the same time, the Defendants failed to disclose that Primoris' estimating, cost-to-complete forecasting, and project oversight processes were deficient, causing the Company to systematically underestimate project costs and risks on multiple significant renewable energy projects. A series of disclosures between February 23, 2026 and June 22, 2026 identified significant cost overruns, project delays, and execution challenges affecting six renewable energy projects, which resulted to the decline of its stock price. The Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages due to the wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting precipitous decline in the market value of Primoris common stock. Primoris Services Corporation is an infrastructure services company that provides engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services to customers in the utilities, energy, and infrastructure markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com PRIMORIS SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over False Company Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Primoris Services Corporation ("Primoris" or the "Company") (NYSE:PRIM) in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Primoris common stock between August 5, 2025 and June 22, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 21, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation Details: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Primoris' cost estimation, cost-to-complete forecasting, and project oversight processes were deficient and failed to provide reliable estimates of the costs and expected profitability of significant fixed-price renewable energy projects; (2) as a result, Primoris systematically underestimated the costs and risks of significant fixed-price renewable energy projects that were experiencing material cost overruns, execution problems, and schedule delays; and (3) accordingly, defendants' statements regarding Primoris' estimating processes, project execution, ability to manage project risk, financial performance, and financial guidance lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material adverse facts. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On May 5, 2026, Primoris issued a press release reporting its financial results for the first quarter of 2026. Primoris reported results below analyst expectations and slashed full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance from $560-$580 million to $480-$500 million. Primoris attributed the reduction to lower renewable energy activity, delayed project starts, and increased costs on renewable energy projects. On this news, Primoris's stock price fell $101.69 per share, or 50.11%, to close at $101.23 per share on May 6, 2026, thereby injuring investors. Then, on June 22, 2026, Primoris revealed a series of business updates including the departure of its Chief Operating Officer and a further slash to its financial outlook for the full year of 2026, in part due to "cost overruns and delays" related to six of the Company's projects. The company also said it anticipates lower revenue and gross profit for full year 2026, primarily driven by lower expected revenue and gross profit in the renewables business, where it now sees full-year revenue at $2.1 billion to $3 billion. On this news, Primoris's stock price fell $23.39, or 21.6%, to close at $84.95 per share on June 22, 2026, thereby injuring investors further. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired Primoris shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn and Facebook, and keep up with other news by following Brandon Walker, Esq. on LinkedIn. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] QUIK PICK: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Johnson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE JOHNSON, MOIRA YACKEL, and WALTER RICHARDSON, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUIK PICK EXPRESS LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22722 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and Class Members, in violation of California state wage and hour laws. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and Class Members worked over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week. Moreover, the Defendants did not accurately or appropriately compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for the hours worked by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiffs and Class Members to complete post-shift tasks after clocking out such as responding to calls and emails regarding dispatch and scheduling, to clock out for meal periods and continue working, and to wait until their scheduled shift before they were permitted to clock-in, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and Class Members. In addition, Defendants failed to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses, based on the number of driver recruits, loads handled, and port deliveries completed, into the regular rate of pay during pay periods where overtime was worked. Defendants also failed to pay for all hours worked by attempting but failing to properly implement an alternative workweek schedule ("AWS") including, without limitation, by failing to implement a written agreement designating the regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of work days and work hours are regularly recurring; failing to adopt the AWS in a secret ballot election, before the performance of work, by at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the affected employees in the work unit; failing to follow the notice/disclosures procedures prior to any AWS election; and/or failing to register an AWS election with the State of California, as required by Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders, all to the detriment of Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief under California Labor Code and seek the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in obtaining this injunctive relief, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff NICOLE JOHSON was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from January of 2023 through January of 2025, with duties not limited to, controlling logistics and sending and receiving loads in dispatch. Plaintiff MOIRA YACKEL was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from October of 2018 through February of 2023, with duties not limited to, regular truck inspections to ensure safe operating conditions, transporting empty containers back to the port, and handling pick-up and securing loads for transport. Plaintiff WALTER RICHARDSON was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from December of 2025 through February of 2026, with duties subject to production targets and quotas that included handling loading and unloading 45 trucks of inventory daily, operating a pallet jack, restocking pallets, breaking down damaged pallets, separating pallets, and assisting with delivery of packages. Defendant QUIK PICK EXPRESS LLC is a provider of third-party logistics (3PL) solutions, specializing in warehousing and trucking services across California. DOES 1 through 100 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq. Pavel Rukavishnikov, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: calyn@tomorrowlaw.com pavel@tomorrowlaw.com REALPAGE INC: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $360MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who paid rent directly to a landlord, property manager or owner-operator for a multifamily residential lease at a property that used RealPage's revenue management solutions, including lease rent options, YieldStar or AI revenue management between Oct. 18, 2018, and Nov. 21, 2025, may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. RealPage Inc. and dozens of large property management companies agreed to pay $359,925,000 to settle a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs alleged the companies conspired to fix and inflate the price of multifamily rental housing across the United States and its territories by sharing sensitive pricing data and using RealPage's software to coordinate rental prices. Who can file a claim for a settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They paid rent on at least one multifamily residential real estate lease directly to any owner, manager or owner-operator, including divisions, subsidiaries, predecessors, agents or affiliates of these entities but not through a third party. -- The property they rented was subject to a license for RealPage's revenue management solutions, including lease rent options, YieldStar or AI revenue management. -- They rented any time between Oct. 18, 2018, and Nov. 21, 2025. Each individual who paid rent directly can submit a claim for their portion of the rent. If multiple people paid rent for the same unit, each must file separately for their share. Class members can view the list of settling defendants on Page 1 of the official class action notice. To confirm if their property is eligible, claimants can also search the property list on the official settlement website. Even if their building is not on the list, they may still submit a claim for consideration. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund, according to the plan of allocation. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the estimated rent overcharge percentage, total rent paid during the qualifying period and the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: RealPage Rental Software Litigation, Settlement Administrator, Attn: Claim Forms, P.O. Box 119, East Brunswick, NJ 08816-9998 The claim deadline is Jan. 29, 2027. Required proof and claim information -- Claimants must provide the mailing address for each eligible property on the claim form. -- They must also provide supporting documentation showing they paid rent directly to an owner, manager or owner-operator on the property list at any time during the class period. The documentation must show the month and year during the lease period. Acceptable documentation includes: -- Lease agreements -- Proof of renter's insurance -- Rent renewal letters -- Rent ledgers from landlord/portal -- Official move-in/move-out statements -- Payment confirmations from a resident portal -- Bank statements showing rent payments (with unrelated lines redacted) -- Canceled checks -- Money order receipts -- Other information showing rent payment at the address listed on the claim form -- Claimants who experienced a name change since they rented a qualifying property due to marriage, divorce or another reason must include supporting documentation showing the legal name change. This may include a marriage certificate, divorce decree, court order, updated government issued ID or other proof that connects the prior name to the current name. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $359,925,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $119,975,000 plus expenses and costs -- Service awards to class representatives: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Sept. 1, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Oct. 15, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 29, 2027 When is the RealPage rental software antitrust settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after it completes all claim processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged RealPage Inc. and several large property management companies conspired to fix and inflate the price of multifamily rental housing by sharing nonpublic data and using RealPage's revenue management software to coordinate pricing. The plaintiffs claimed this conduct violated federal and state antitrust laws, causing renters to pay higher rents and reducing rental options. The defendants denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata share Deadline: January 29, 2027 [GN] REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: McNelis Files Class Suit in N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Redridge Diligence Services LLC. The case is captioned Anne McNelis and John Wilkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Redridge Diligence Services LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-07036 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2026). The Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendant for contract-related claims. The case is assigned to Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Redridge Diligence Services LLC is a financial advisory and transaction support firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Settles Job Posting Info Class Suit for $4.26MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Refresco Beverages has signed on to an up to $4,265,000 settlement to end a class action lawsuit that alleged the drink manufacturer failed to disclose required information about wage scales, salary ranges and benefits to job applicants in Washington. The up to $4,265,000 Refresco Beverages class action settlement received preliminary court approval on June 5, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who, between January 1, 2023 and June 5, 2026, applied for a job opening for a position with Refresco Beverages in Washington where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits for the position. The court-approved website for the Refresco Beverages class action settlement can be found at RefrescoSettlement.com. Refresco Beverages settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive an estimated $1,724.39 pro rata cash payment. The final amount of each class member's cash payout will be determined based on the total number of valid claims filed, among other factors. To submit a Refresco Beverages settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can fill out and submit the paper claim form they received with their notice and return it by mail to the settlement administrator. All Refresco Beverages claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 14, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Refresco Beverage settlement following a hearing on October 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Refresco Beverages class action lawsuit alleged that the beverage manufacturing company failed to disclose required information about wages and benefits in job postings for open positions in Washington in violation of the state's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. [GN] REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGN) securities. If you suffered a loss on your Regeneron investment and would like to explore a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, Learn about Regeneron Class Action or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212)363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 1, 2025 and May 15, 2026. CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Regeneron's Phase III Fianlimab-Libtayo Study; notably, that its preliminary statistical assumptions were fundamentally flawed, that the active treatment arm was failing to achieve meaningful clinical differentiation over standard therapies, and that the trial would ultimately fail to reach statistical significance on its primary endpoint even without overperformance of the control arm. On April 29, 2026, during Regeneron's first quarter earnings call, defendants disclosed the Phase III Fianlimab-Libtayo Study had been altered, expanding the number of patients in the study eligible for "analysis of progression-free survival." Following this news, the price of Regeneron's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $731.77 per share on April 28, 2026, Regeneron's stock price fell to $686.36 per share on April 29, 2026, a decline of about 6.2% in the span of just a single day. On May 15, 2026, Regeneron issued a press release announcing that the "Phase 3 Trial of Fianlimab . . . did not reach statistical significance for the primary endpoint of improvement in progression-free survival (PFS)." Following this news, the price of Regeneron's common stock declined even further. From a closing market price of $698.25 per share on May 15, 2026, Regeneron's stock price fell to $629.68 per share on May 18, 2026, a decline of about 9.8% in the span of one day. WHAT'S NEXT? If you purchased Regeneron stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares, learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212)363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] RTX CORP: Dismissed Securities Suit on Appeal, Derivatives Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- RTX Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that, following the company's identification of a rare condition in powder metal used to manufacture certain Pratt & Whitney engine parts, two putative federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against it and certain current and former executives. The lawsuits allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements and omitting material facts relating to Pratt & Whitney's GTF engine fleet, including the impact of the powder metal issue on the fleet, in various regulatory filings. The lawsuits were consolidated, and on September 12, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated case. On October 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additionally, multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against current and former officers and directors of the company in the District of Delaware. The complaints in these actions allege that the defendants caused the company to make materially false and misleading statements relating to Pratt & Whitney's GTF engines and failed to maintain an adequate system of oversight, disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over financial reporting. RTX Corp is a global aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military, and government customers worldwide. It operates through businesses including Pratt & Whitney, Collins Aerospace, and Raytheon, offering products ranging from aircraft engines to defense and space systems. SAC FINANCE: Berry Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------- TERESA K. BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAC FINANCE INC. a/k/a SUPERIOR AUTO, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-512 (S.D. Ind., July 22, 2026) is a collection and class action seeking arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked significant overtime beyond 40 hours in a workweek but Defendant failed to pay her overtime wages at her full overtime rate of pay and include other categories of wages which resulted to wage underpayment. Plaintiff Kerry was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt account representative from some time in 2020 until the date of her alleged wrongful termination on May 20, 2026. SAC Finance, Inc. provides financial services focused on vehicle financing and auto loans. The Company offers auto loan origination, payment processing through multiple channels, and account management for borrowers. SAC Finance Inc serves individuals seeking vehicle financing across the United States.[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 SAIA MOTOR: Blakely Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DEAHDATDA BLAKELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, a LOUISIANA limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002961, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02208-SCR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege these causes of action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and the Putative Class Members under the California Labor Code: (1) failure to provide paid rest breaks and pay missed rest break premiums; (2) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (3) failure to pay for all hours worked; (4) failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner; (5) failure to provide complete wage statements; and (6) waiting time penalties. The Plaintiffs further alleged Defendants' unfair competition in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC is a trucking company operating across North America.[BN] Defendant Saia Motor Freight Line is represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Ethan W. Smith, Esq. Robert Browne, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 E-mail: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com ethan.smith@bclplaw.com rob.browne@bclplaw.com - and - Sharon S. Mequet, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 E-mail: sharon.mequet@bclplaw.com SAM'S CLUB: Lopez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Termination ----------------------------------------------------------- YESENIA LOPEZ, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SAM'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-12478-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked, including overtime hours, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant and Plaintiff's managers consistently and improperly required Plaintiff to work through her lunch break as well as before and after her scheduled shifts, even though she was "off the clock." Further, and rather than paying Plaintiff for every hour she worked, Defendant automatically deducted breaks from Plaintiff's paychecks despite requiring her to work through those breaks. According to the complaint, on November 23, 2024, Plaintiff suffered a severe bile blockage requiring emergency hospitalization, multiple surgeries, and approximately one month of inpatient care. Plaintiff notified Defendant of her serious health condition on the second day of her hospitalization. Despite Plaintiff's medical providers submitting Plaintiff's medical documentation to Defendant during her treatment, Defendant's leave administrator, Sedgwick, claimed never to have received any of Plaintiff's medical documentation and refused to process Plaintiff's leave request. When Plaintiff attempted to coordinate her return to work, Plaintiff's managers and team lead refused to respond to her inquiries. Plaintiff was never formally notified of her termination -- she learned she had been let go only when her Sam's Club membership expired, with Defendant having classified her departure as "voluntary." The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was terminated because of her disability in violation of Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act ("PWDCRA") and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of the FMLA, Plaintiff has been placed in financial distress and has suffered a loss of earnings and benefits, and a loss of and impairment of her earning capacity and ability to work, and will continue to suffer such losses in the future. The Plaintiff seeks judgement against Defendant in the amount of her unpaid back pay, front pay, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees under the FMLA and PWDCRA; an award of unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA; an award of unpaid wages for compensable hours under the FLSA; an award of unaccrued vacation time under the FLSA; an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA; Interest; attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA; and such other relief. Plaintiff Yesenia Lopez was employed by Defendant for more than 12 months and having worked more than 1,250 hours in the 12-month period preceding her leave. Defendant Sam's Club is a foreign profit corporation incorporated in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. Brendan J. Childress, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St, Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (844) 847-9489 E-mail: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com Brendan@hurwitzlaw.com SANBARCOLLBUSCOM INC: King Sues Over Employment Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Sanbarcollbuscom, Inc. The case is captioned as Donald Ray King v. Sanbarcollbuscom, Inc., Case No. 26CUB02379 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., June 18, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging employment law violations by the Defendant. The case is assigned to Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. A case management conference has been set for December 15, 2026. Sanbarcollbuscom, Inc. is a corporate entity best known as the parent organization doing business as California Aeronautical University and formerly associated with Santa Barbara Business College.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Eve Howe, Esq. D.LAW 450 N Brand Blvd, Ste 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 SANMINA CORP: Continues to Defend Multiple PAGA Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanmina Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 27, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Ramirez, Lobatos, Gomez, Guerrero, and Buezo PAGA class suits. On Nov. 14, 2023, former employee Gerardo Ramirez filed two lawsuits against the Company in the Alameda County Superior Court, consisting of a putative class action and a separate representative action under California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (together, the Ramirez Cases). The class action alleges violations of multiple California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during employment, wage statements, payroll records, and reimbursement of business expenses. It seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company within the State of California at any time between March 1, 2021 and the date of final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Ramirez PAGA complaint alleges substantially similar violations, plus a violation of the provision governing payment of final wages, and seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved employees, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 16, 2024 and June 14, 2024, former employee Carlos Lobatos filed class and PAGA actions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court (the Lobatos Cases) alleging violations substantially similar to those at issue in the Ramirez Cases. In addition, the Lobatos PAGA action alleges further violations related to sick leave, suitable rest facilities, seating, failure to retain and provide employment and payroll records, reporting time pay, day of rest rules, payroll deductions, paid time off, and various alleged unlawful employment practices. The Lobatos class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company, directly or via a staffing agency, within the State of California at any time between May 16, 2020 and the date of final judgment. It also seeks unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On Aug. 12, 2024, former employee Mando Gomez filed a class and PAGA action in the Alameda County Superior Court (the Gomez Case) alleging violations substantially similar to those alleged in the Ramirez Cases. The Gomez Case seeks certification of a class of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company, directly or via a staffing agency, within the State of California at any time between August 12, 2020 and the date of final judgment. It further seeks unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On Sept. 20, 2024 and Nov. 26, 2024, former employee Frank J. Leon Guerrero filed class and PAGA actions in the Alameda County Superior Court (the Guerrero Cases) alleging violations substantially similar to those alleged in the Ramirez Cases. The Guerrero class action seeks certification of several classes comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company, directly or via a staffing agency, within the State of California at any time between Sept. 20, 2020 and the date of final judgment. It seeks unspecified damages, penalties, restitution, attorneys fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. On Feb. 17, 2026, former employee Jose Buezo filed a PAGA action in the Orange County Superior Court (the Buezo Case) alleging violations substantially similar to those alleged in the Ramirez PAGA action, as well as additional claims relating to allegedly unpaid vacation and sick pay. The Buezo Case seeks penalties individually and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved non-exempt employees, along with attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs of suit. The Company expects the Lobatos Cases, the Gomez Case, the Guerrero Cases, and the Buezo Case to be related to or consolidated with the Ramirez Cases and states that it intends to defend all such cases vigorously. Sanmina Corp. is a global integrated manufacturing solutions provider serving the electronics manufacturing services market, including communications, enterprise, industrial, medical, defense, automotive, and other technology-driven industries. It offers design, engineering, manufacturing, logistics, and aftermarket services to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. SAVINGS BANK: Garcia Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SAVINGS BANK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, a Massachusetts insurance company, d/b/a SBLI.COM, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV 14681, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-07036-MWC-RAO to the proceeding. In this complaint, the alleged putative class includes "All California citizens who: (1) received any commercial e-mail promoting any of Defendant's products or services at a California e-mail address where such email(s) contained: (1) a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; (2) falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information; or (3) false or misleading subject line or contents; or (2) visited SBLI.COM and whose interactions, communications, or personally identifiable information were intercepted, collected, or transmitted to any data brokers through the use of tracking pixels, cookies, or similar technologies, without their knowledge or consent." The Savings Bank Mutual Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts (SBLI) is an American life insurance provider.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sean P. Nalty, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: sean.nalty@ogletree.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Continues to Defend Hall ERISA Class Suit in Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Hall ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Dec. 26, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by David Hall and Jennifer Knapp, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the Plan), naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants (the Hall Complaint). The Hall Complaint seeks damages for defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting and monitoring certain of the Plan’s investment options, which are affiliated investment products. While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, defendants believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the allegations contained in the Hall Complaint vigorously. At this stage of the litigation, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the matters set forth in the Hall Complaint. SEI Investments Co. is a global provider of investment processing, investment management, and investment operations solutions that help corporations, financial institutions, and professionals create and manage wealth. The company delivers technology and outsourced services to support asset management, wealth management, and retirement plan administration. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Hearing in DeSimone Set for August 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeSimone, et al., v. Select Portfolio Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03837 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order that the Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for class certification in the following two related cases on August 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4F North. -- Evans v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. , Case No. 18-CV- 5985, and -- DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Case No. 20-CV- 3837. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Select operates as a mortgage servicing company.[CC] SF BAY PIZZA: Bishop Files Employment Class Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against SF BAY PIZZA LLC. The case is captioned SEAN BISHOP, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SF BAY PIZZA LLC, Case No. CU26-05923 (Cal. Super., Solan Cty., June 15, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's employment law violation. A case management conference has been set for December 2, 2026. SF BAY Pizza LLC is a limited-liability company based in California.[BN] SHINESTY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shinesty, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-03207-JWB-SGE (D. Minn., July 22, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's Website, www.starter.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SLM CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Alleged Misstatements ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLM Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is facing a putative securities class action lawsuit filed against it and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned "Zappia v. SLM Corporation, et al." The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities. It contends that certain statements made by the company and certain of its officers were allegedly false or misleading, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff on Feb. 17, 2026, and the court granted that motion on April 1, 2026. On June 8, 2026, plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to pursue the asserted securities law claims. SLM Corp, commonly known as Sallie Mae, is a financial services company specializing in private education loans and related services for students and families in the United States. It also offers savings products and insurance solutions designed to support education financing and financial wellness. SOLIANT HEALTH: Settles Job Posting Class Action for $496,550 ------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that employment seekers who applied for a job with Soliant Health LLC or Soliant Physician Staffing LLC in Washington state between Jan. 1, 2023, and May 26, 2026, may be eligible to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. Soliant Health and Soliant Physician Staffing agreed to pay between $496,550 and $737,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging their job postings for Washington-based positions failed to include required wage scales, salary ranges or a general description of benefits or other compensation in violation of state law. Who can file a claim? Individuals must meet all of the following criteria: -- They submitted an application for employment for a job opening in the state of Washington with Soliant Health or Soliant Physician Staffing between Jan. 1, 2023, and May 26, 2026. -- They applied to a job posting published on one of the defendants’ websites or an authorized third-party recruiting platform between Jan. 1, 2023, and July 26, 2027. -- The job posting they responded to did not include a wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits for the position. How much is the Soliant Health payout? The amount each class member receives depends on how many valid claims class members submit. The total settlement fund ranges from a minimum of $496,550 to a maximum of $737,000. All participating class members who submit a valid claim will receive an equal share of the net settlement fund, which is the settlement fund minus attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, a service award to the class representative and settlement administration costs. -- If 368 or fewer class members (50% or fewer of the 737 total) submit valid claims, the settlement administrator will distribute the minimum fund of $495,550 equally among claimants. -- For every additional participating class member above 368, Soliant Health will increase the value of the settlement fund by $652.51 up to the maximum settlement fund of $737,000. -- The minimum estimated payment is $652.51 but could be as high as $5,000 depending on the number of valid claims submitted. The settlement administrator will classify these payments as nonwage damages and report them on IRS Form 1099. How to claim a settlement payment To claim a payment, class members can file a claim online or download and print the PDF claim form to complete and submit to the settlement administrator by mail or email. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Jamie Anderson v. Soliant Health LLC, et al, c/o Simpluris Inc., P.O. Box 26170, Santa Ana, CA 92799 Settlement administrator's email address: info@SH-SPSEPOASettlement.com The deadline to submit a claim is Sept. 15, 2026. Required proof To file an online claim, class members will need to provide the unique ID and PIN located in the personalized notice they received. Payout options The settlement administrator will mail checks to the address class members provide on the claim form. Class members must cash their checks within 120 days of issuance. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $496,550 to $737,000 will cover: -- Settlement administrator: Up to $15,000 -- Attorneys' fees: $221,100 -- Attorneys' expenses: $5,000 -- Service award to class representative: $15,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 15, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 16, 2026 When is the Soliant Health settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Soliant Health and Soliant Physician Staffing failed to include required wage and benefit information in job postings for positions in Washington as required by state law (RCW 49.58.110). The companies deny all allegations, but both sides agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of ongoing litigation. The settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the defendants. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 Deadline: September 15, 2026 [GN] SOLVENTUM CORP: Salgado Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Minn. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Solventum Corporation. The case is captioned Lourdes Salgado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Solventum Corporation, Case No. 0:26-cv-02964-KMM-JFD (D. Minn., June 16, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant for personal injury-related claims. The case is assigned to Judge Katherine M. Menendez and referred to Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. Solventum Corporation is an American health care company known for its medical technology, health information systems, and filtration products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com The Defendant is represented by: Holley C. M. Horrell, Esq. GREENE ESPEL PLLP 222 S 9th St., Ste 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 373-8394 E-mail: hhorrell@greeneespel.com SOLVENTUM CORP: Watson Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLVENTUM CORPORATION AND SOLVENTUM HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02969-KMM-ECW (D. Minn., June 16, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information (collectively "Private Information") who were impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On March 30, 2026, the Defendant became aware of a data security incident that occurred on March 29, 2026, involving unauthorized access to its systems and data related to Defendant's customers and their clients or patients. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Solventum Corporation is a global medical technology and health sciences company that provides health information and technology services to hospital systems and other healthcare-related clients. The Company is headquartered in Eagan, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David Goodwin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com STATE FARM: Kozak Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------- The case SANDRA KOZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 26CV192931, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-07312 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for declaratory and injunctive relief under California Code of Civil Procedure and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code in connection with certain provisions of State Farm's Homeowners Policy, California HW-2105. State Farm General Insurance Company is an insurance provider, headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sean O. Morris, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 Email: Sean.Morris@arnoldporter.com STOP & SHOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinckey Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA E. PINCKNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2682CV00707 (Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., June 22, 2026 is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Pinckney was employed by the Defendant as an associate. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC owns and operates retail establishments throughout the northeast United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Enriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategies to Empower People, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Enriquez, III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Strategies to Empower People, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 26CV017329 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., July 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Strategies to Empower People -- https://stepagency.com/ -- is an innovative pioneer in support services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Seeks Equal Access to Commercial Property ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and YOUGAS INC D/B/A EXXON, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-24913-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2026) is class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising the Defendants' alleged multiple violations of the American with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Brito is a person with disability who encountered architectural barriers during his visits at the commercial property and gas station which affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The denial of barriers to access endangered the safety, poses risk of injuries and causes embarrassment and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, says the suit. The Plaintiff requests an inspection of the Defendants' places of public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts violating the ADA and barriers to access identified in the Complaint. SUNSHINE GASOLINE owns and manages the commercial property and gas station in Hialeah, Florida. 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 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com SUNTRUST BANK: $240MM Settlement Claim Forms Submission Due Sept 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that SunTrust Bank has agreed to an up to $240,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial institution charged Georgia residents unlawful overdraft fees that constituted interest, in violation of state usury laws. The up to $240 million SunTrust Bank class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 23, 2026. The deal covers anyone who was a Georgia citizen on July 12, 2010 and has continuously remained a citizen of Georgia through October 6, 2017, who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank that were not closed before June 1, 2010, and who from July 12, 2006 to April 15, 2014: -- Had at least one overdraft of $500 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction; -- Paid any overdraft fees as a result of the transaction; and -- Did not receive a refund of those fees. The court-approved website for the SunTrust Bank class action settlement can be found at SunTrustOverdraftClassAction.com. SunTrust settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment, with no proof required. To submit a SunTrust Bank settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. All SunTrust Bank claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by September 14, 2026. The court granted final approval to the SunTrust Bank settlement on May 26, 2026. The SunTrust Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the financial institution improperly charged overdraft fees on ATM or debit card transactions that essentially constituted interest, in violation of Georgia's usury laws. [GN] SUPERIOR FENCE: Vega Labor Suit Filed in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Superior Fence Construction and Repair, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mateo Vega, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly situated v. Superior Fence Construction and Repair, Inc., Case No. 26CV015032 (Cal. Super., June 18, 2026). The action arises from the Plaintiff's allegations of labor law violations by the Defendant. Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi presides over the case. An initial case management conference has been scheduled for May 26, 2027. Superior Fence Construction and Repair, Inc. is a California-based fencing contractor doing business as Fantastic Fence, serving the Sacramento, Rocklin, and Roseville areas with wood fencing, gates, and repair services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E Ocean Blvd, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802-4899 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 TACO BELL: Oliva Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Taco Bell Corp. The case is captioned as Krystal Lopez Oliva, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al., v. Taco Bell Corp., a California corporation, Case No. 26CUB02316 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., June 15, 2026). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr., presides over the case. A case management conference has been set for December 14, 2026, before Judge Barmann. Taco Bell Corp. doing business as Taco Bell, is an American multinational chain of fast food restaurants founded in 1962 by Glen Bell in Downey, California.[BN] TARZANA TREATMENT: C.W. Files Personal Injury Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc. The case is captioned as C.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-06631 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2026). The case involves Plaintiff's personal injury claims arising out of an alleged contract dispute with the Defendant. Tarzana Treatment Centers, Inc. provides healthcare and addiction treatment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM PC 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 471-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com TAYLOR FARMS: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Lettuce, Leafy Greens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carly Nairn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that two customers on opposite coasts filed the first class action against Taylor Farms, blaming the lettuce producer and distributor for the spread of a parasitic infection with thousands of confirmed or suspected cases in the U.S. Californian Kait Gelbspan and New Yorker Victor Granados say in their complaint that the cyclospora contamination and subsequent food poisoning was preventable. "There are products on the market which lack contamination of cyclosporiasis, so the contamination is entirely avoidable," they write. "Defendant did not notify plaintiffs or class members of the risk of contamination through the product's labels, ingredients, packaging, or advertising -- and omission which caused significant, deleterious harm to purchasers of the products." Taylor Farms supplies, distributes, and sells lettuce products nationwide under brand names used by large companies such as Costco, Whole Foods, Taco Bell and Sweetgreen. The outbreak reportedly began in mid-May from contaminated food at Taco Bells in the Midwest. The plaintiffs say Taylor Farms' shredded lettuce and leafy greens likely contained cyclospora, a microscopic parasite that causes the intestinal infection cyclosporiasis. Approximately one week after infection, symptoms including watery diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, cramping and bloating occur, and can last a few weeks. The parasite is spread when food and water come into contact with contaminated feces. "Taylor Farms was aware of the dangers associated with cyclosporiasis contamination prior to the manufacture of the products and should have identified any such contamination through its own testing and analysis prior to placing the products in the marketplace," the plaintiffs say. The suit, filed Thursday, July 16, in the Northern District of California federal court, is the first class action over the contaminated greens, though other individual suits have launched throughout the nation. The class plaintiffs say any U.S. customer that purchased Taylor Farms lettuce and leafy green products in June and July is a potential class member, with California and New York sub-classes for product recalls. "In an era of lax enforcement and policy failures which leave the window open for food corporations to cut corners, private enforcement becomes all the more necessary to protect consumers from parasitic illness like cyclosporiasis," plaintiffs' attorney Blake Yagman said in an email to Courthouse News. "We will continue to fight every day to ensure consumers are safe and to restore confidence that the food products we buy will not make us sick. Together, we make us safe," he said. The plaintiffs' claims include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment and violations of California and New York's business and consumer protection laws. They seek restitution and disgorgement of funds Taylor Farms earned in distributing and selling the contaminated products, along with compensatory and punitive damages with interest, along with a jury trial. On Friday, July 17, Taylor Farms issued a voluntary recall of its iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico that was distributed from June 29 to July 16. Taylor Farms did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] TAYLOR FRESH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contaminated Lettuce --------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Sepion of Westlaw Today reports that Taylor Fresh Foods Inc. and Taco Bell Corp. owe damages for selling food containing iceberg lettuce allegedly contaminated with cyclospora, a West Virgini Null v. Taylor Fresh Foods Inc. et al., No. 26-cv-1943, complaint filed, (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2026). Taylor Farms and Taco Bell were negligent by failing to prevent cyclospora contamination and were unjustly enriched by selling the tainted products, Lawrence Null alleges in a complaint filed July 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. "Federal public-health authorities linked a nationwide outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasitic infection, to iceberg lettuce that Taylor Farms produced and supplied," the complaint says. "Consumers who purchased food containing that lettuce paid for a wholesome, merchantable product and received an adulterated one." Cyclospora outbreak In July, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other health agencies reported they were investigating a multistate outbreak of cyclosporiasis, an intestinal infection caused by the parasite cyclospora, which spreads through food or water contaminated with feces. According to the CDC, more than 1,600 people in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia became ill from May 13 to July 13, with 94 hospitalizations. Health officials linked the outbreak to Taylor Farms de Mexico shredded iceberg lettuce that was distributed to Taco Bell restaurants in the five states. Taylor Farms responded in a July 17 statement that it was voluntarily recalling iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico. After a re-review of the test, the FDA on July 19 called the test result a false positive, Reuters reported, adding that the FDA said the basis for linking Taylor Farms lettuce to the outbreak remained unchanged and that the agency was continuing its investigation. Taylor Farms updated its statement to say "Today, FDA apologized to us. . . . To be clear, at this moment, FDA has not identified a single positive product test result for cyclospora." Alleged economic injury According to the complaint, Null bought three cheesy bean and rice burritos with added lettuce and one mini taco salad at the Taco Bell location in Ravenswood, West Virginia, on June 29. He says he would not have purchased the food if he had known the lettuce was contaminated. Null says neither he nor the putative class received the "benefit of their bargain" and that they sustained an economic injury because they paid for "wholesome food fit for human consumption" but received "adulterated food that could not lawfully be sold and was worth less than they paid, and in law was worthless as human food." The suit alleges Taylor Farms and Taco Bell engaged in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 46A-6-104, by representing that the affected products were wholesome. Null further alleges Taylor and Taco Bell were negligent and unjustly enriched and breached the implied warranty of merchantability. He seeks class certification for a nationwide class and a West Virginia subclass of all people who purchased Taco Bell food containing Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce that was subject to recall, as well as Taylor Farms lettuce-containing products distributed through other channels, from May 1 through the date of final judgment. Null, represented by Jason M. Ingber of Levi & Korsinsky LLP, also seeks actual, statutory and treble damages, plus restitution and disgorgement of money that the defendants received for the purportedly contaminated products. [GN] TIMEX GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Commercial Emails --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Charles Cultrara filed a class action lawsuit against Timex Group USA Inc. Why: Cultrara claims Timex violates Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) by sending emails with false urgency in the subject line. Where: The Timex class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Timex violates Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act by sending emails with false urgency in the subject line. Plaintiff Charles Cultrara filed the complaint, claiming the company sends Washington residents emails with subject lines designed to create a false sense of urgency. "Timex spams Washington consumers, including [the plaintiff], with commercial emails whose subject lines employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency in consumers' minds -- and ultimately, from consumers' wallets," the Timex class action lawsuit alleges. Cultrara claims the spam emails steer consumers away from shopping for better deals to Timex's products and services, which they are falsely led to believe must be purchased now. The Timex class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of Washington's CEMA and Consumer Protection Act. Cultrara seeks to represent a class of Washington residents who received Timex spam emails during the class period. Timex emails used deceptive 'false urgency' tactics, lawsuit alleges Cultrara claims Timex uses false urgency to manipulate consumers into making purchases. He says the Federal Trade Commission has identified "false limited time messages" as a deceptive practice that pressures consumers to buy immediately by saying the offer is good only for a limited time, or that the deal ends soon. The Timex class action lawsuit includes examples of emails sent to consumers with subject lines such as "Ending Soon 31% OFF," "Last Chance for 31% OFF" and "Flash Sale Extended." Cultrara claims Timex often extends the promotions after the advertised deadlines, proving the falsity of the subject lines. Cultrara alleges Timex's use of false urgency harms consumers by distorting their decision-making and causing them to make purchases they might otherwise not have made. He also claims the practice harms market competition by causing consumers to ignore legitimate scarcity claims from other sellers. The Timex class action lawsuit demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief and an award of actual or liquidated damages, trebled, for Cultrara and the class members. In a similar case, a consumer accused language-learning app Babbel of spamming Washington consumers with "limited-time" discounts. What do you think of the allegations made in this Timex class action lawsuit? Tell us in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Samuel J. Strauss of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of CohenMalad LLP; and J. Gerard Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC. The Timex class action lawsuit is Cultrara v. Timex Group USA Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00445-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Brown Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MOZZELL BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00672 (W.D. Wis., July 23, 2026) is a class action arising from the failure of the Defendant to protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information of its clients, including Plaintiff. On July 15, 2026, the Defendant disclosed in a post on its website that it experienced a cybersecurity incident, which exfiltrated its computer systems and compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Due to the data breach, the Plaintiff and the Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information, loss or diminished value of their Private Information and lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Plaintiff Brown is a resident of Jurupa Valley, California and a victim of the data security breach. TruStage Financial Group, Inc. provides financial, life insurance, and retirement services, tracking company data, market news, and corporate profiles through financial platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Medrano Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL MEDRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and UBER USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV22585 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., July 17, 2026) is a consumer protection class action against Uber for repeatedly automatically charging consumers for subscriptions to its "Uber One" subscription service without their knowledge or consent, and for failing to provide an easy-to-use online mechanism for cancelling Uber One subscriptions at will that is free of additional steps that obstruct and delay the ability to cancel. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. provides ride hailing and food delivery services in Los Angeles County and throughout the United States. The complaint relates that Uber repeatedly automatically charged Plaintiff and the California Subclass members for Uber One subscriptions, but it failed to present the Uber One automatic renewal terms, including the price, in a clear and conspicuous manner in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before charging Plaintiff and the California Subclass members for the Uber One subscriptions. The Defendants' charging of Plaintiff and the Class members for Uber One subscriptions without their knowledge or consent, and Defendants' failure to provide an easy-to-use online mechanism for cancelling Uber One subscriptions at will without obstructions or delays, violate California's Automatic Purchase Renewals Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings causes of action for: (i) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) conversion under California law; and (iii) unjust enrichment under California law. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. Plaintiff Manuel Medrano was a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George V. Granade, Esq. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Farris E. Ain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FARRIS AIN, APC 1822A E Route 66 # 272 Glendora, CA 91740 Telephone: (909) 626-1166 E-mail: eservice@ainlaw.com UNION PACIFIC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Finger Scan System -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is facing a December 2019 putative class action complaint under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act alleging violations arising from the use of a finger scan system that was developed and managed by third parties. The complaint contends that the use of this biometric system violated statutory requirements governing the collection, use, and handling of biometric information, and seeks to proceed on behalf of a putative class. Union Pacific Corp is a leading transportation company that operates one of the largest freight rail networks in North America. It provides rail transportation services for a diverse range of goods, serving major population centers and industrial markets across the western two-thirds of the United States. UNITED STATES: Boring Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is styled as Jonathan Boring, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:26-cv-01026-RMM (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay - FLSA. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Keith McGillivary, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: gkm@mselaborlaw.com UNLIMITED SYSTEMS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Unlimited Systems data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Unlimited Systems data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Unlimited Systems Security Incident: What Happened? Unlimited Technology Systems, which provides practice management software to healthcare organizations, has disclosed a data breach potentially affecting sensitive information. According to a sample notice submitted to the Iowa Attorney General's Office on July 1, 2026, Unlimited Systems detected unusual activity within its commercial data center on October 19, 2025. After an investigation with a cybersecurity forensic firm, the company determined that an unauthorized actor accessed files between October 5, 2025 and October 10, 2025. The sample notice, which can be seen below, states that information potentially affected by the Unlimited Systems data breach included names, health insurance policy numbers, health insurance claims or benefits, medical record numbers, dates of service, diagnosis information, driver's licenses, government IDs, insurance cards, intake forms, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, email and mailing addresses, phone numbers and demographic information. The notice states that the degree of impacted information varied per individual. What You Can Do After the Unlimited Systems Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Unlimited Systems data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Unlimited Systems to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] US STAR TRUCKING: Kikosh Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Star Trucking, LLC. The case is styled as Ruslan Kikosh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. US Star Trucking, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-04128-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal., July 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. US Star Trucking, LLC -- https://www.usstartruckingllc.com/ -- provide reliable vehicle logistics nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Guinn Shay Harrison James Lynch SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: dan@shaylegal.com harrison@shaylegal.com - and - Joshua Brandon Swigart Katherine Anne Tuohy SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com katherine@swigartlawgroup.com VACASA LLC: Horrocks Sues Over Rentals' Hidden Booking Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE HORROCKS, KYLE SCATES, and ERICA RUFF, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VACASA LLC and VACASA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-at-01207 (E.D. Cal., July 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants alleging that Defendants mislead consumers concerning the amounts they must pay to book short-term vacation rentals. Defendant Vacasa, Inc., directly and through its subsidiaries, operates one of the largest vacation-rental management businesses in the United States. Defendant Vacasa LLC is the operating entity through which the Vacasa vacation-rental business is conducted, including the marketing, advertising, booking, and renting of short-term lodging to consumers via vacasa.com and third-party online travel platforms. Plaintiffs Katherine Horrocks, Kyle Scates, and Erica Ruff booked short-term vacation rentals through Vacasa's platform or a third-party platform on which Vacasa advertised. On each occasion, Vacasa advertised a nightly rental rate that did not include the mandatory "Fees" that the Plaintiff was ultimately required to pay. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the general public to stop Vacasa from advertising vacation-rental prices that do not include all mandatory fees, and to recover the undisclosed fees that Vacasa has unlawfully extracted from Plaintiffs and the Class. Specifically, the complaint relates that the Plaintiffs booked a Vacasa-managed short-term vacation rental that Vacasa advertised through the third-party online travel platform Booking.com. In each instance, the "Fees" were mandatory, non-government charges that each Plaintiff was required to pay to complete the booking, and that were not included in the nightly rate Vacasa initially advertised. Had Vacasa advertised its prices inclusive of all mandatory fees as the law requires, or had each Plaintiff otherwise known the true all-in price at the outset, each Plaintiff would have acted differently. At a minimum, each Plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of accurate, price-based comparison shopping, was diverted to Vacasa by an artificially low advertised price that appeared less expensive than competing accommodations advertising truthful all-in prices, and paid more than she or he would have paid absent Vacasa's deceptive pricing practice. Each Plaintiff lost money as a result of Vacasa's unlawful conduct in an amount at least equal to the undisclosed mandatory fees she or he paid, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc. com VENTURA COUNTY: Sanchez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against VENTURA COUNTY RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., et al. The case is captioned as ANTONIA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees s. VENTURA COUNTY RESTAURANT SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 26STCV19488 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 18, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging employment law violations by the Defendant. The case is assigned to Judge Samantha Jessner. Ventura County Restaurant Services, Inc. is a business entity located in Ventura, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 VGW LTD: Payne Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against VGW, Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Jose Kevin Gonzalez Payne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VGW, Ltd., VGW Holdings US, VGW US, Inc., VGW Holdings, Ltd., VGW Canada Inc., VGW GP Ltd, VGW Malta, Ltd, VGW Luckyland, Inc., VGW Games, Ltd., Case No. 4:26-cv-00484-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. VGW -- https://www.vgw.co/ -- is an interactive entertainment company, harnessing technology and creativity to deliver world-class, free-to-play games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Rhoads, Esq. RHOADS & RHOADS. PSC 115 E. Second Street, Suite 100 Owensboro, KY 42302-2023 Phone: (270) 683-4600 Fax: (270) 683-1653 Email: chris@rhoadsandrhoads.com - and - Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 34205 Phone: (205) 930-9900 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com VICTORY PACKAGING: Chevry Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANNA CHEVRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORY PACKAGING, L.P., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CIVSB2613839, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03572-FMO-MAR to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for alleged (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to timely pay wages during termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) waiting time penalties; (8) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (9) violation of unfair competition law. Victory Packaging, L.P. offers packaging products and services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394.9401 E-mail: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com VYBEZ EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lyon Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA LYON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VYBEZ EXECUTIVE EVENTS AND CATERING, LLC; ANIKULAPO ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC; and LEOPOLD EWING, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03434-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lyon was employed by the Defendants as a bartender. Vybez Executive Events And Catering, LLC is engaged as a private event space and catering business. [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: Elena Komsky, Esq. CANTRELL SCHUETTE, P.A. 3379 Peachtree Rd NE Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 474-7924 Direct: (404) 726-2716 Email: ekomsky@lawcantrell.com paralegal@lawcantrell.com W.S.B. & ASSOCIATES: Mixon Employment Suit Filed in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against the W.S.B. & Associates, Inc. The case is captioned SHALITA WILLIAMS MIXON, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. W.S.B. & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 26CV194606 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., June 16, 2026). The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant for employment-related claims. The case is assigned to Hon. S. Raj Chatterjee. An initial case management conference has been set for November 23, 2026. W.S.B. & Associates, Inc. is a private security and investigations firm, offering services such as security consulting, patrol, and event security from its headquarters in San Francisco, California.[BN] WEST PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed ------------------------------------------------------------------ West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending June 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2026, that it is facing a putative securities class action filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers, including allegations of violations of federal securities laws and a procedural history extending through briefing on a motion to dismiss. The case alleged misstatements regarding the company's business, operations, and prospects, as well as certain stock transactions by current and former officers. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On May 5, 2025, New England Teamsters Pension Fund filed a class action against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between Feb. 16, 2023, and Feb. 12, 2025. On July 23, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the action and on Oct. 15, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with 1) various public statements made by the company and certain current and former officers regarding its business, operations and prospects and 2) certain current and former officers' transactions in its stock. The action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On Dec. 18, 2025, the defendants filed their first motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Pursuant to the scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on Feb. 24, 2026, and the defendants filed their reply on March 31, 2026. West Pharmaceutical Services Inc. is a global manufacturer of containment and delivery systems for injectable medicines and healthcare products, serving pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device customers. It provides components and systems for parenteral drug packaging and delivery, as well as contract manufacturing and related services. WHITFIELD REGIONAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Whitfield Regional Hospital data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Whitfield Regional Hospital data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Whitfield Regional Hospital Security Incident: What Happened? Tombigbee Healthcare Authority, operating as Whitfield Regional Hospital, has disclosed a data breach that may have affected sensitive information. According to a notice posted on the Whitfield Regional Hospital website, the Alabama-based hospital detected unauthorized access to its network on or around June 8, 2025 that potentially exposed certain data in its care. Following an investigation with external cybersecurity professionals, Whitfield Regional Hospital determined on June 26, 2026 that the impacted files may have included first and last names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, medical information and health insurance information. The Whitfield Regional Hospital data breach was also reported to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation on July 17, 2026. The same day, the hospital began to notify individuals whose information was potentially impacted by the breach. What You Can Do After the Whitfield Regional Hospital Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Whitfield Regional Hospital data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Whitfield Regional Hospital to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] WORKDAY INC: Faces Class Action Over AI-Powered Hiring System ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam DeRose, writing for HR BREW, reports that a class action lawsuit against HCM giant Workday is among the first highly anticipated AI-related cases working its way through the courts as more than 90% of companies use AI in their TA process, according to a recent Manpower Group report. The class action lawsuit, Mobley v. Workday, was first brought against the company in early 2023, and alleges algorithmic bias in its hiring software used by its customers. At issue is whether or not Workday's AI-powered hiring system disparately impacts applicants based on age, race, and other factors. The suit alleges Workday's AI-powered hiring tools discriminate against people protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and those protections ordered by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The lawsuit argues disparate impact, that an employment practice can violate civil rights laws even if it appears neutral and there was no intent to discriminate. "From a fundamental level it's very interesting to me because, obviously with the rise of AI, we're seeing new legal questions that come up from this," Ashlee Difuntorum, an associate with the law firm KHIKS, said. "Workday is essentially like an AI provider, so they contract with employers and say, 'we'll help you as you screen applicants to different job openings and positions.' They're using their algorithm that they're building . . . [to] help these companies in the job application process." A US District Court judge for the Northern District of California denied Workday's motion last month to dismiss portions of the suit claiming the HCM and enterprise software giant violated FEHA. The ruling noted the vendor had a significant (legal term alert) "nexus" to the Golden State even if not all of the plaintiffs in the class action suit are California residents. "There needs to be some connection to California," Difuntorum said. "To hold a company accountable -- potentially hold them accountable for something that they do under a state law like California's law -- there needs to be a significant connection to California." Because these AI systems that Workday is shopping around to its customers (even those in another state) are created, maintained from, and serviced from its headquarters in California, there is enough "nexus" for plaintiffs to bring up these state FHFA claims. "This is actually somewhat of a unique case because it's going after the vendor," she said. "That's not to say they couldn't go after the employer. I view it as a little bit of going for the head of the snake, so to speak." Although the vendor, Workday (and not its customers), is the defendant in the Mobley class action, HR and TA teams should still eye the case, Difuntorum said. Federal agencies like the EEOC have outlined that employers still bear responsibility for discriminatory outcomes stemming from the AI technology they deploy, even if the software is built by an external vendor. For HR leaders, one key takeaway is that courts also appear willing to evaluate AI hiring systems like any other employment selection tool. Difuntorum recommended paying close attention to vendor contracts and practices before deploying the tech. "The employers need to be careful when they're contracting," she said. "Understand, as the employer, who you're contracting with, what their systems are, how it operates, how they're working to be cognizant of this very real reality and risk of there being discriminatory impact from the processes, and asking the questions, understanding what those vendors are doing to try to prevent that, and then of course including that in the vendor agreement, so that everyone's on the same page." [GN] WORKER BEES: Medina Seeks to Recover Minimum and Regular Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS MEDINA, individually and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORKER BEES INC., a California corporation; LAX FREIGHT DELIVERY, INC, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case 26STCV23019 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 21, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover civil penalties and related relief from violations of the California Labor Code and civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. According to the complaint, on approximately November 28, 2023 until on or about March 1, 2025, Plaintiff Medina worked as a hourly, non-exempt staffing agency logistics worker but he was not compensated for all hours worked at the applicable minimum or regular pay rates. The Defendants instructed Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees to falsely record the unpaid periods as off-duty meal breaks and to continue working through the entirety of the clocked-out periods. Due to the arrangement, the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees did not receive minimum wages and wages for regular hours worked and meal periods, says the suit. Defendant Worker Bees, Inc. is a private staffing and employment service provider in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Julia Rose Mccoy, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 8605 Santa Monica Bl., PMB 42554 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 725-9094 Facsimile: (213) 634-2485 Email: david@spivaklaw.com julia@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Bl., PMB 63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 WORLD RUGBY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Players' Brain Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sian Harrison, writing for The Athletic, reports that more than 500 former rugby union and league players are fighting a bid by the sports' governing bodies to have their High Court claims over brain injuries struck out due to repeated failures to disclose medical evidence. Legal action is being brought by more than 1,100 ex-amateur and professional players against World Rugby, Welsh Rugby Union, the Rugby Football Union (RFU), the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association. The former players claim they have been left with serious neurological conditions, depression and anxiety as a result of repeated concussive and sub-concussive blows. Their lawyers allege the governing bodies breached their duty of care, but World Rugby has argued in its defence that it had no such duty and that injuries are an "inherent risk" in the sport. All the organisations are rigorously defending the claims. Lawyers for the governing bodies argued at a hearing in London on Wednesday, July 22, that around 380 claims in rugby union and a further 132 in league should be thrown out, saying there have been repeated failures by their legal representatives to comply with court orders over disclosure of key medical evidence. But lawyers representing the former players told the court the case is of "significant public interest and societal importance for the continuance of contact/collision sports in the UK" and argue the claims should be allowed to proceed. Susan Rodway KC, for the claimants, said in written arguments: "All defendants appear to have lost sight of the reality of their actions. The claimants have suffered brain damage. Their symptoms include considerable anxiety and many have committed suicide. "The defendants' actions in bringing these strike out claims and taking steps to issue a press release about the same, flies in the face of their protestations of placing the welfare of the players at the forefront." She added: "It would be highly undesirable for a significant number of the former players to lose their claims on procedural grounds, particularly where any irregularity has been cured and the claimants and their representatives have made clear their intention to work co-operatively with the defendants and learn from any past errors." Ms Rodway also told the court that solicitor Richard Boardman of Rylands Garth law firm has stated his intention to step down from representing the claimants and that lawyers from Leigh Day, who are consulting on the case already, are "engaging in a period of due diligence" to decide whether they can take over the claims. In a letter to the court, Mr Boardman, who has been representing the claimants since the legal action was launched in 2020, said: "I will ensure that there is an orderly handover -- to ensure that the court can have confidence that this litigation will be conducted as it would expect going forward." Ms Rodway said the change of representation demonstrates how seriously the claimants take the criticisms levelled at them, and that there will need to be a "period of transition" to any new firm of solicitors. She also said none of the breaches of court orders have been down to the claimants. However lawyers representing the defendant governing bodies argued that, while striking out a claim is a "measure of last resort", it is nearly two years since the original disclosure order was made and there is no other "reasonable or proportionate" remedy. In written arguments, they added: "The Court is presented with widespread and repetitive failures to comply with court orders and the claimants' legal representatives have been given huge latitude to date. Neil Block KC, for the RFU, told the court: "These are important documents . . . an order was made that we were entitled to have them and we have tried in every way." He added: "A point has been reached where enough is enough." The hearing, before Senior Master Cook, is due to continue and he is expected to give his decision on the strike out application at a later date. [GN] WS FUNDING LLC: Fenton Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WS Funding LLC. The case is styled as Avery Fenton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WS Funding LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01921 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WS Funding LLC is a corporate entity historically tied to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Enforcement Actions regarding online lending.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com YOULEND US: Buechler Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Private Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES BUECHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOULEND US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04071-VMC (N.D. Ga., July 20, 2026) is a class action seeking equitable relief and damages arising from the Defendant's failure to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information collected and stored on its network. According to the complaint, cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's protected network servers and stole highly sensitive private information of the Plaintiff and Class Members between June 5, 2026, and June 9, 2026. The said security breach would result in the increased risk of identity theft and fraud against the individuals whose Private Information was compromised. Plaintiff Buechler is a resident of Maryland who has suffered actual injury from having his Private Information exposed and/or stolen as a result of the Data Breach. YouLend is a global embedded finance provider that partners with ecommerce platforms, marketplaces, and payment processors to offer flexible, revenue-based financing to small and medium-sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email:marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and – Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com Rob@lcllp.com ZOLL MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $3.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that ZOLL Medical Corporation has inked a $3.5 million settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the cardiac device maker and medical software company failed to safeguard its computer network from unauthorized access, leading to a data breach from January 22 to January 24, 2023. The $3,500,000 ZOLL Medical class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 5, 2026. The deal covers all living individuals in the United States to whom ZOLL Medical Corporation sent a notice of the data breach indicating that certain personal information was impacted in the cyber incident. The court-approved website for the ZOLL data breach settlement can be found at HeartDeviceDataSettlement.com. Settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the ZOLL data breach. This benefit covers expenses stemming from identity theft or fraud and costs associated with freezing/unfreezing credit reports, credit monitoring, postage, notary services and more. Class members must submit documentation, such as receipts, to receive an out-of-pocket-loss payment. In addition, all class members can submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment. Class members whose Social Security numbers were impacted in the breach can receive an estimated $100, while class members whose Social Security numbers were not impacted can receive an estimated $50, though this amount may increase or decrease depending on several factors. To file a ZOLL Medical Corporation claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the settlement claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF copy of the settlement notice to print, fill out and return to the settlement administrator by mail. ZOLL Medical claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by September 2, 2026. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the ZOLL Medical Corporation data breach settlement following a hearing on September 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after the deal has received final approval and any appeals are resolved. The ZOLL Medical Corporation class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which manufactures LifeVest wearable cardioverter defibrillators, among other emergency care medical devices, failed to safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, on its computer network from a January 2023 data breach. Court documents state that the ZOLL data breach involved the data of current and former patients who were prescribed the company's LifeVest device and some current and former employees. [GN] ********* 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 ***